this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
344 points (96.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9639 readers
336 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 110 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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@kbin.social 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

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@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 11 points 10 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@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 6 points 10 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.