Most active commenters
  • troupo(3)

←back to thread

398 points ChrisArchitect | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jjani ◴[] No.45141781[source]
Going to pre-empt the comments that always pop up in these topics saying "Google/Meta/Apple will just leave the EU at this rate": Google still has around $20 billion yearly reasons to remain active in the EU. Talking Europe yearly net profit here, post-fine. No, they're not going to say "screw this fine, you can take your $20 billion per year, we're leaving!". The second that happens, shareholders will have Sundar's access revoked within the hour.

There is a number of countries where Google has to deal with large levels of protectionist barriers (not the EU, these fines aren't that) and they still operate there. Korea is just one example. Because there's still a lot of money to be made. China isn't a counterexample: Google stopped operating search in China because at that point there was not a lot of money to be made for them in search there.

replies(12): >>45141980 #>>45142009 #>>45142120 #>>45142501 #>>45142511 #>>45142596 #>>45142965 #>>45143127 #>>45143496 #>>45146021 #>>45147755 #>>45162530 #
1. 29athrowaway ◴[] No.45142596[source]
It is not only revenue, it is mining data, feeding it into Gemini and selling it back to people in the form of ML models.
replies(1): >>45142671 #
2. immibis ◴[] No.45142671[source]
If you can prove Google did this, the GDPR fines will make them bankrupt. Corporations are rightfully terrified of breaking GDPR.
replies(1): >>45142896 #
3. troupo ◴[] No.45142896[source]
GDPR hasn't been really enforced. I don't think anyone is scared of GDPR anymore.
replies(4): >>45143301 #>>45143549 #>>45143786 #>>45144451 #
4. fsflover ◴[] No.45143301{3}[source]
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
replies(1): >>45147159 #
5. jacquesm ◴[] No.45143549{3}[source]
Have I got news for you...

I'm aware of a single record case that cost the perp 350K. You really don't want to get zapped with the maximum fines based on wilful transgressions on large numbers of people.

edit: I misremembered, it was 100K higher.

replies(1): >>45147167 #
6. mdhb ◴[] No.45143786{3}[source]
You seem to pop up on threads on a daily basis just making up shit and pretending it’s a fact. I guess it really matches the bio you wrote here in your profile but JFC… why..
7. carstenhag ◴[] No.45144451{3}[source]
MasterCard leaked address + full credit card data about 90.000 people in Germany. Everyone that signed up for a lawyer (that was paid 15% of a possible payout) got 250-300€, including me. If only 10.000 signed up, it's already 2.5 millions.

https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/mastercard-zahlt-kunden-...

replies(1): >>45145182 #
8. lazide ◴[] No.45145182{4}[source]
That is such a tiny amount it’s absurd?
9. troupo ◴[] No.45147159{4}[source]
Yup. Small fish, tiny fines. The actual wide spread abuse? Nope
replies(1): >>45166462 #
10. troupo ◴[] No.45147167{4}[source]
Oh no. You are aware of a single cade that is 100K or higher?

Somehow that doesn't stop the proliferation of tracking across the web's largest properties and companies.

11. account42 ◴[] No.45166462{5}[source]
Unfortunately true. Real enforcement would have companies make sure they stay on the legal side instead of trying to work around the rules.