Facebook to be fined £500K says UK Information Commissioner

[HEXUS]

Meanwhile, Facebook has started trialling AR advertising in the news feed.

Read more.

[LSG501]

wow... 500k, that's really going to stop them from doing it again....
Think it's time for that max fine to be revised to a min amount and/or percentage of earnings.

[spacein_vader]

wow... 500k, that's really going to stop them from doing it again....
Think it's time for that max fine to be revised to a min amount and/or percentage of earnings.

It has been, sadly the new fines are only for offenses after May 25th this year. As this predates that the old fine regime is in place.

[3dcandy]

Aye GPDR is a much harsher set of financial rules

[aidanjt]

'Tis but a scratch!

But unlike the black knight, it 'tis but a scratch. :/

[Saracen]

Aye GPDR is a much harsher set of financial rules

Indeed. IIRC, it's a percentage (2%, 3%??) of turnover .... and global turnover, at that. And that isn't a mere scratch. It's gonna really hurt.

[spacein_vader]

Indeed. IIRC, it's a percentage (2%, 3%??) of turnover .... and global turnover, at that. And that isn't a mere scratch. It's gonna really hurt.

Up to 4% of total global turnover or €20m (or the £ equivalent,) whichever is higher.

[Saracen]

Just noticed an item aded on to the report about this .... a company running websites offering guidance to pregnant women and new parents are to be fined £140,000 for selling personal info on 1 million users, without consent, to the Labour party, for the last General Election.

Labour have said they'll review how they buy such data, and the company deny the assertions of the Information Commissioner's office.


Pregnant mums? Really? Is nothing sacred any more?



Oh, and while I'm generally not a Labour fan, my bet is they drew the short straw and got caught, but they're probably all at it.

[Usernamist]

For anyone wondering, £500K is what facebook makes every 18 minutes. Don't know how they'll ever recover

[peterb]

But it sends a message to anyone else. This was the maximum fine when the offence was committed. The maximum fine is now the higher of £20.000000 or 4% of global turnover. (As spacin_vader says earlier)

[Corky34]

Just noticed an item aded on to the report about this .... a company running websites offering guidance to pregnant women and new parents are to be fined £140,000 for selling personal info on 1 million users, without consent, to the Labour party, for the last General Election.

Labour have said they'll review how they buy such data, and the company deny the assertions of the Information Commissioner's office.

Pregnant mums? Really? Is nothing sacred any more?

Oh, and while I'm generally not a Labour fan, my bet is they drew the short straw and got caught, but they're probably all at it.

Their defiantly all at it but some are at it more than others, most figures I've looked at show the Conservatives spend considerably more than other political party on digital campaigning, by how much is difficult to nail down what with the way parties try to obfuscate campaign spending (some reports put it at £1.2m in 2015 and £2.1m in 2017 (link to a laggy pressgazette.co.uk article)), one constant though is that nearly all 'reports' on spending show the Conservatives spent the most in both the 2015 and 17 general elections on digital campaigning.

[spacein_vader]

Just noticed an item aded on to the report about this .... a company running websites offering guidance to pregnant women and new parents are to be fined £140,000 for selling personal info on 1 million users, without consent, to the Labour party, for the last General Election.

Labour have said they'll review how they buy such data, and the company deny the assertions of the Information Commissioner's office.


Pregnant mums? Really? Is nothing sacred any more?



Oh, and while I'm generally not a Labour fan, my bet is they drew the short straw and got caught, but they're probably all at it.

Their defiantly all at it but some are at it more than others, most figures I've looked at show the Conservatives spend considerably more than other political party on digital campaigning, by how much is difficult to nail down what with the way parties try to obfuscate campaign spending (some reports put it at £1.2m in 2015 and £2.1m in 2017 (link to a laggy pressgazette.co.uk article)), one constant though is that nearly all 'reports' on spending show the Conservatives spent the most in both the 2015 and 17 general elections on digital campaigning.

They are indeed all at it. As the Commissioner points out in the full report, linked to in this blog post:

The ICO has sent 11 warning letters requiring action by the main
political parties backed by Assessment Notices for audits later this
year.
We have concluded that there are risks in relation to the processing of
personal data by many political parties. Particular concerns include: the
purchasing of marketing lists and lifestyle information from data brokers
without sufficient due diligence, a lack of fair processing, and use of third
party data analytics companies with insufficient checks around consent.

She goes on to explain that while all parties and several data brokers are involved, they've only enough evidence to go after Emma's Diary (the baby site Saracen mentioned,) at this point.

They're also investigating an insurance company that gave access to it's customer list to Leave.EU during the referendum campaign which is contrary to both the old Data Protection Act (1998) and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations (2003).