Zoom's income in 2021 was 2.6 billion dollars.
$86m/$2.6 billion = 0.033. If I earn $100k per year, that's like a fine of $3300.
$86m/$2.6 billion = 0.033. If I earn $100k per year, that's like a fine of $3300.
Entire companies are created and grown based on these dark patterns, which, because the law moves slowly, are not yet fully illegal in a open and shut kind of way.
The punishment doesn't deter enough, because Zoom has been making a ton more money off this and will continue to do so.
It's a bit like Ford's: "Don't ask me how I made my first million", that first million being the hardest part (once you have 999 million, getting to 1 billion is trivial).
If breaking the law is a net benefit for companies, then the only companies you'll be left with in a competitive space are the ones that break the law. So the fines have to be _huge_ to make any meaningful difference.
OTOH the laws that Uber ignores (and then later forces to change) are often a cause of stagnation, and no company would work to get them changed _before_ setting up shop, because even if they succeed then they've just paid the price of admission for all their competitors, too. So I guess I don't have a real solution to offer.
I mean, I think it's worthwhile to compare and see how you'd think about this, right? $3k fine seems high in the abstract to me. Then again, if it's viewed as a kind of tax for going from $25k/year in annual income to $100k/year – eh, doesn't sound like much. What do you think?
> Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down.
I am actually curious to see if that's the case – are there any reports of such shutdowns/layoffs?
A more logical comparison is profits (net income) to salary, which is the money they keep (like salary). Zoom had net income of $672M in FY2021.
Which means if you earned $100k, that'd be a fine of $12,800.
That's a pretty big fine if you ask me. That's not a slap on the wrist -- that's going to be behavior-changing for most people.
Where do you think my salary goes? Things are pretty expensive.
I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy; I think they profit from providing video-meeting software. I think penalizing undesirable behavior that doesn't produce profit will motivate Zoom to take that undesirable behavior very seriously.
Many moons ago, lawyers used to crash the carpool lanes in Washington, DC for about that price given the time they would save and the amount they could bill. The firms just started paying the fines. It wasn't until the penalty started having points and could cost you your drivers license that the behavior stopped.
They are. "Move fast and break things"-strategy is a decision for higher growth at the cost of privacy, security and stability for customers.
A wealthy man get's a $625 red light violation, and it's dinner conversation.
A poor man get the same punishment, and it could be the last straw.
What if you were making only $25k/year the previous year, and the speeding ticket enabled you to get the job that's making $100k/year?
In a year with like 300% revenue growth, I feel like Zoom can probably just treat this fine as cost of doing business. I mean, I pay a lot more than $3k in taxes per year!
Most businesses are structured such that failing isn't disastrous (creditors cannot chase after the owners), whereas a human experiencing financial failure is an extreme life setback.
Corporations lose one day of revenue and continue with business as usual.
So when the court is considering fines, they don't go and look at a 3 million dollar fine and go "that's a good fine", they look at the revenue instead and go "the fine can be as much as 400M"