FTC Approves Roughly $5B Facebook Settlement
wsj.com
wsj.com
Some of this changed after 9/11, but the underlying mentality is still somewhat there.
It gets us closer in the sense that climbing a mountain gets one closer to the moon.
One might also ask the same question when IDs for different purposes are used -- why not a fuss over driver's licenses and passports, which are context-dependent IDs?
We can always call it something else. "National signature card". The ideal implementation would be something like Estonia's ID card.
The reasons attempts to require voter ID at polling places is currently a partisan issue include:
1. The level of voter fraud is very low, and what little there is almost always would not be prevented by voter ID at the polling place. It usually takes place by absentee ballots, or is based on registering people to vote who should not be eligible (which can be addressed someone by ID requirement--but at registration, not at the polls).
2. When deciding what forms of ID are acceptable, there has been a remarkable correlation between whether a given form is allowed, and whether or not a significantly larger fraction of white voters have that form of ID than do black or Hispanic voters.
3. The same people that pass these voter ID laws have also, in many states, cut the budgets of the state agencies that issue IDs, generally be closing offices that can issue IDs and reducing the hours of those that remain. The closures have tended to be of offices that serve largely black or Hispanic populations, and the cutbacks in hours of the remaining offices have tended to eliminate weekend and evening service. I've read several stories about people who to get an ID had to take a two hour bus ride to reach one of the remaining offices, and had to take a day off work to do it, which was quite a hardship for them.
In short, the current push for voter ID has almost nothing to do with insuring the integrity of the election process. It's about trying to make it harder for to vote for groups of voters that have historically voted against the party that is pushing for voter ID laws.
If we had a national ID, issued by the Federal government rather than state governments, with a strong commitment to make sure everyone who was eligible received their card, and a Federal law that said any state voter ID check must accept the national ID card, it could probably be done in a way that avoids #2 and #3.
The people who believe this vote at a much higher rate than the people who don't. And even the people who don't directly believe it, many of them are influenced by the people who do. "I don't actually believe Politician X is the actual Anti-Christ, but Preacher Y does make a good point about their tax policy..."
Anything new that could be called a "national ID" is going to be met with a lot of money saying it's the Mark of the Beast.
I noticed as I read that statement my first instinct was to blindly agree with you, because it feels like it might be true (from inside my bubble). But on second thought, do we actually have voting stats to back up this idea, or is it more of the phenomenon that the minority opinions making the most noise seem to be more numerous than the population who generally keep to themselves?
Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting bloc at 27% of the population, but only represent 20% of the votes cast [3].
[1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-eva...
[2] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-tu...
[3] https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-yo...
Is REAL ID the beginning of the Mark of the Beast? https://www.endtime.com/podcast/real-id-update/
Students of Bible prophecy recognize this as a possible fulfillment of the prophecy found in the book of Revelation - https://www.jeremiahproject.com/new-world-order/u-s-roll-nat...
The Real ID – A National ID or Mark of the Beast? https://escapeallthesethings.com/real-id-act/
Is coming national ID 'mark of the beast'? https://www.wnd.com/2006/05/36029/
National ID Cards and the Mark Of the Beast https://countdown.org/en/entries/features/national-id-cards-...
The mark of the beast is pretty specific in that it requires the right hand or forehead. I once thought maybe we'd see something with embedded RFID in that space get the fundies riled up, but machine learning of faces and gestures and gait and so forth are quite sufficient. The future for us meatbags will look more like an Amazon Go store experience, you carry the mark already as original sin just because of your slight differences from everyone else that machines can pick up on!
Early Christians had a lot of experience with oppressive bureaucracies -- The Holy Roman Empire, among others -- and willfully subjecting yourself to a system for faraway emperors to scrutinize and inject themselves into your personal dealings is generally not a precursor to good times and personal prosperity.
Note that there is a big difference between "Christians" and "Christian Fundamentalists" or "Evangelicals". Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are politically conservative groups, Fundamentalists even more so.
Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting bloc at 27% of the population, but only represent 20% of the votes cast [3].
[1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-eva...
[2] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-tu...
[3] https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-yo...
Voting is a guaranteed right of the US constitution, but there are some real barriers for some people for getting state issued ID. It's has a monetary cost, it expires, it now requires a birth certificate. If you're poor, older, or happened to have your birth hospital's or county office's records destroyed by a fire (not uncommon at all), you may not be able to get a valid, state-issued ID.
For instance, my mother was born to Irish parents with US citizenship through naturalization (granted under a law according citizenship to people who fought for the allies in WWII). When she moved to a new state and needed to renew her driver's license, it took months to get someone to accept her documents and explanation even though she had been a US citizen all her life (but born outside the country).
Whatever national ID system would be implemented, it would have to be bulletproof. Otherwise it could incidentally disenfranchise people.
There are some guarantees yes. But it's not universal.
For example, voting eligibility is frequently denied on the basis of age and criminal history.
There have actually been requirements enacted prohibiting SSNs from being used for anything other than social security, but they haven't been enforced, and that's the problem with SSNs.
The answer isn't to have a national ID, it's to get rid of SSNs, or at least restrict them to social security.
You shouldn't need a SSN to open a bank account. The bank should issue you a bank ID (i.e. a debit/credit card) which allows you to get/spend the money you've deposited. You have a credit card number, you have a bank routing number, what do you need a SSN for? Only surveillance, nothing else.
If you stop using SSNs for anything other than social security, you can't have Equifax. Databases tracking everything about everybody are not required to exist, do not benefit people, and national ID numbers only exist to enable them.
They could still withhold the interest until you provide the SSN in the uncommon case that both of those are satisfied, but that should be very uncommon indeed because if you have enough money to reach the reporting threshold, you would make more investing it in even low risk securities, so only foolish or extremely conservative people should ever have done that.
(And if we want to go into a different policy discussion, you wouldn't need SSNs at all if we would switch to VAT+UBI, because then there is no income tax, the UBI handles making it progressive, and the VAT is handled by the selling business, so there is no need to track anyone's personal dealings whatsoever.)
That would lead to the bank needing to get your SSN on an existing account when you made a deposit. That seems... messy.
I'd much rather have something more secure than a literal piece of card printed decades ago.
Considering how there seems to be a major data breach every week, I don't think we've come up with a "secure" alternative to that little piece of card yet.
SSN is literally a national ID system. Assigned at birth/immigration/residency. Used by national government to pay benefits, track Medicare membership, receive taxes, etc.
If you're talking about adding photos and fingerprints and stuff to SSN or equivalent...that's not a cost thing. That's 100% a privacy thing.
It's treated like a secret, but as a 9-digit number you give to dozens of organizations in your life which follows a predictable and partially guessable pattern, it is an absolutely terrible secret.
Absolutely good explainer video about how this travesty took place historically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus
It's like given name & surname (also identifiers), but actually unique.
The problem is that SSN is not only an identifier, it's also the means of authentication, which is "the process or action of verifying an identity."
---
To draw an analogy, username is an identifier. Password, SSH key exchange, etc. are mean of authentication, i.e. the process of verifying a username identifies the user.
SSN is both a username and a password; it needs to be one or the other.
A common misperception. A SSN is not assigned at birth. A child doesn't have to have a SSN unless the parents want to use him as a tax deduction.
I didn't get mine until I was 17 and needed one to get a driver's license and passport.
The federal government requires it for Social Security benefits, and states may require it for driver's licenses, birth certificates, etc.
Practically speaking, between state laws and banking requirements, virtually every U.S. citizen has one.
That'd be weird, considering for decades the cards specifically said otherwise.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
> Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972.
There are many ways of implementing this from photos to fingerprints to passwords to (my preference) smartcards that never expose the real ID and rely on asymmetrical encryption.
Not really. Facebook has shadow profiles of non-users.
But not anything like in the sense of a logged in user and the level of knowledge they have about actual users.
Facebook knows a lot less about non-registered users than Google does, for instance.
And in the sense of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is what this fine is about, my understanding is that non-users were entirely unaffected.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/searchengineland.com/google-ano...
Equifax did and offered it for free (credit monitoring/freezing upsell), even though it didn't fix the problem its monetary value masked the settlement.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_TkbPZXkAITIol.jpg
There is zero impact to Facebook from this fine. They are celebrating with champagne and looking at new yacht prices in Menlo Park.
Nobody goes to jail, everyone keeps their jobs. They only broke Democracy, it seems like that would be the one crime you wouldn't just get off scot free for. The FTC is complicit, we don't seem to have a functional regulatory system in this country any more.
My econ-mojo may be really off, but revenue is more akin to the gross profit, not the net profit, correct?
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/facebook-earnings-q1-2019.ht...
Revenue is how much you take in before costs. An analogy of revenue is how much money your employer pays you — before you deduct taxes, food, rent, etc.
It's an extremely fast way to change a company, no matter how much voting power Zuckerberg has. It'll kick Facebook into old age stagnation and rot mode faster than just about anything else. To say nothing of what happens when an organization no longer trusts and believes in its CEO.
Which is to say, Zuckerberg's voting power doesn't make him or Facebook immune to suffering numerous consequences of poor leadership. That can rather dramatically change Facebook. Depending on the extent and duration of that poor decision making obviously.
And there are thousands of college graduates who will spend months learning LeetCode and be glad to take their places and get a total comp of $250K+ a year. You severely overestimate how few people care more about the “greater good” than collecting a nice check.
Assuming that more ethical people are better to work with and vice versa, then as more ethical people leave, the work enviroment gets worse and worse.
Like, payroll issues take longer to deal with, your co-workers aren't as up for beers on Fridays, your boss isn't as on your side as you'd like. So, the elves leave middle earth.
Eventually, the company can end up in a situation where payroll issues are impossible to deal with, where your co-workers are far too free to hit up a bar on a Tuesday night, where your boss could care less about you. So then even some of the skuzz-bucket people say they have had enough.
So, yeah, FB is good right now and can use their funds to pay people to deal with those issues. But fines like the one they got today are going to hamper that process.
As has been said for decades: Culture is everything.
Also, it really does depend on the firm. I've worked a lot of jobs that couldn't be arsed to know my name. I've worked a lot fewer jobs that really did care about me, but I have been there and seen them.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say over lunch that you told your boss at one of those companies “that really did care” about you that you just bought a house and that you and your spouse are expecting a child. Then the next week that because of a strategic shift/missed earnings/acquisition where the acquirer wanted to find “synergies” they decided they were going to let you go. What do you think is going to happen?
As such, it depends. And yes, I've seen those exact conversations play out in the favor of the employee before, about a dozen times, even in the larger firms. I've also seen it play out badly too.
EDIT: Also, 90% of all companies in the US are under 20 people: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-employment-by-firm-size-h...
This fine is $5B, if they keep doing the same sort of thing, what is the next fine going to be?
Now why does any of that matter when Zuckerberg is nearly impossible to remove? Because it risks suppressing the share value, which will (further) harm Facebook's ability to attract the best talent. SV companies like Facebook universally believe they sink or swim by the talent they retain and can recruit.
If Facebook becomes enough of a mess, everyone turns on Zuckerberg, and he's done. The trust entirely goes, the belief in his leadership goes, the board relationships sour, talent doesn't want to work for him, executives don't want to work for him. It means in real terms he can no longer actually lead the company (morally, functionally), regardless of his voting position.
I'm not saying FB has done no wrong, but is it really 100 times worse than Equifax, Wall Street banks and a host of other more malicious corporate offenders that got a slap on the wrist and a small 1-2 digit fine?
All these companies should be paying giant fines. FB's fine is not giant relative to their yearly revenue.
They realize that'd be biting the hand that feeds them. From all the big industries, only tech seems to have an active desire to watch itself burn.
If it is not yet obvious, taking large amounts of money from tech companies will impact everyone, including tech employees by forcing job cuts and lowering salaries. Doesn't matter if you work at Facebook.
FB is flat over the last year, I would like to see a fine that results in a significant loss of market cap, preferably something which would require selling off business units to stay solvent.
Yes it was priced into the stock and that price is about equal to the price of FB a year ago.
I want that price, the long term price not the intraday reaction, I want the long term price to be down more than 10%.
Can you really see a headline of a $10/20/50b fine for Facebook?
That will be noticed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/technology/facebook-ftc-f...
That's a quote from the article in The Guardian [0].
Negotiations? They were negotiating their own fine? That sounds so absurd. Surely someone can reply telling me it's normal, but can anyone make an argument for why it makes sense?
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/12/facebook-...
The market is reacting to the removal of that uncertainty, which is the same as a reduction in risk holding the stock.
The should have fined FB on some % of their total revenue, like GRDP. I'd say 15/20% at least.
it is relative, for normal people it is indeed a ton of cash, but you have to compare that to the size of FB. In that respect, $5B is not that much.
Though the GDPR is per violation, so technically one can be fined for more than that.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
About as painful as a bad PR week. And easy to attribute to the "cost of doing business"