• NaibofTabr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11011 months ago

    Hmm, but I did not agree to those privacy policies nor was I provided with a copy.

    This seems like potential grounds for a lawsuit. Anyone have an idea how to demonstrate harm?

    • @9point6
      link
      English
      5911 months ago

      I’m pretty sure the EU GDPR requires explicit & clear consent for data collection.

      That’s up to a £17.5m fine or 4% of your annual turnover, whichever is higher

      • Deceptichum
        link
        fedilink
        33
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        That’s nothing.

        100% of last years profit. Make them almost die the first time and utterly ruin them if they do it a second.

        Sick of these insignificant fines that do nothing to stop these companies.

        • @Womble
          link
          English
          2611 months ago

          4% of turnover is massive. Take BMW as an example, 4% of their revenue is 5.7Billion dollars, compared to their net profit of 18.6Billion. One third of their entire profit is absolutely enough to make them do everything they can to avoid it. Also, importantly, they cant get up to creative accounting to minimise revenue, misrepresenting that is fraud, unlike profit when companies get up to all sorts of tricks to artificiality lower it.

          • @9point6
            link
            English
            1111 months ago

            Honestly BMW comes out quite well in the scenario compared to many of their competitors. I looked up Citroen, Fiat, Ford & GM and they all were in the range of 60-90% of their profit getting wiped out by a GDPR 4% fine.

            I was kinda hoping to find one over 100% profit, but I decided not to spend the rest of my evening looking up annual financials for car manufactures

        • @grue
          link
          English
          10
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I see no reason to cap fines to anything less than 100% of gross revenue. An egregious enough violation should kill the company (which has no inherent right to exist, BTW – being granted a corporate charter is a privilege), even if it’s the first one.

        • @Sanctus
          link
          English
          711 months ago

          Its not even borderline ridiculous. The fines are so low they just incorporate them into operating costs. Jail the entire executive suit and board if a company does this shit, no bail.

          • @9point6
            link
            English
            9
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I highlighted turnover deliberately. 4% of any company’s turnover is absolutely not something that can be rolled into BAU running costs.

            Not least of all, if a company doesn’t fix the violations, they’ll come for it again with a fresh 4% fine.

            Edit: typo

    • @CobblerScholar
      link
      English
      3711 months ago

      How about national security? Russia or NK might struggle hacking the CIA but Nissan or Mercedes ain’t going to have the same security. Now you have hundreds of thousands of multifaceted information collection devices spread throughout the whole country in the hands of companies that would take the seat belts out if they weren’t legally required to put them in.

      • @Jimmyeatsausage
        link
        English
        511 months ago

        This is exactly why it’s forbidden to discuss classified information outside of a secure facility… even if you think you’re alone with another cleared person.

        Obviously, humans are gonna do human things, but the government has policies in place to try and prevent this sort of leak from occurring.

        • @FireRetardant
          link
          English
          611 months ago

          This isn’t just about government secrets. This data could be used to blackmail someone based on where their car was and at what time or use other data acquired from the car against them.