[HN Gopher] Google faces EUR600k privacy fine in Belgium
___________________________________________________________________
Google faces EUR600k privacy fine in Belgium
Author : jacquesm
Score : 109 points
Date : 2020-07-14 15:57 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.brusselstimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.brusselstimes.com)
| samstave wrote:
| Ill admit - ive never actually understood fines against companies
| - meaning the economic benefactors of said fines.
|
| I never hear where those fines go and what is ultimate the
| outcome of them.
|
| So, ok - company A gets fined N millions of dollars.
|
| You never hear anything like:
|
| "Googles $600k fine was used to finance school supplies for 3
| million students! Yay!"
|
| Im not being flippant - in just pointing out that there is
| never(?) any followup as to what happens to said "fines for
| transgression"
| detaro wrote:
| Do you wonder about the same when you hear about someone
| getting a speeding ticket?
| lexs wrote:
| At least in Germany that is due to the fact that taxes and
| afaik fines are not directly used for such things but are added
| to the budget which then in turn is used to fund these things
| samstave wrote:
| In my personal opinion - i find that super shady.
|
| The fine is due to personal privacy damages against the users
| of said companies services.
|
| IMO - the freaking fines should go directly to the users. Not
| some opaque and potentially mis-managed "general budget.
|
| An analogy would be to say - tesla had a bug in thei software
| which caused 1,000 teslas to act "not as regulated, designed
| or intended" so the government is going to fine teala 600k
| and allocate that wherever they want.
|
| The actual users of the product/service are the ones that
| need reimbursement - not some opaque "generl budget"
|
| Thats why i hate these fines.
|
| Its false justice for thise actually affected by the issue
| for which the company is being fined for.
|
| Let me give tou a concrete personal example:
|
| The 2008 housing mortgage crash.
|
| I go to pay my mortgage one day - and the payment option is
| missing. I cant pay my mortgage on my $480,000 (put 100k
| down) home in San Jose.
|
| Long story short - after 9 montha of nefarious dodging of to
| whom the "sold my mortgage to" (me: credit 780 - never missed
| a payment nor late)
|
| Made $175,000/ year at the time , wife made $150,000z
|
| So the just foreclose on me. Multiple times telling me
| "obamas going to fix it"
|
| Demand $75,000 in three days or else. So i get foreclosed
| upon.
|
| Sue.
|
| But instead added to a class action suit against this.
|
| I "win"
|
| They pay me out my settlement: $1,100.08
|
| I have never recovered from that and this is why i think
| these things are bullshit and i rage about it to this day.
|
| Do you know that that home zillows for (i stand corrected -
| last tome i zillowed it it was at 1.39 million - but that was
| like two years ago. It sold last month for 790k
|
| Still has all my remodels that i did at forclosure time. The
| custom capiz cabinets i had specially built and shipped from
| the philippines for $11,000 my bamboo floors my lighting the
| only thing in that house i didnt do was the green shower and
| the wainscoting in the closet my tv wall my downstairs
| bathroom.
|
| Fuck these guys.
| gruez wrote:
| Sounds like what happened was
|
| 1. the complainant told google to delete something
|
| 2. google says no
|
| 3. the complainant complains to the DPA, who agrees with them and
| fines google 600k
|
| The implementation of "right to be forgotten" is problematic. It
| forces service providers to take down content on the request of a
| complainant, without going through judicial approval. It's up to
| the service provider to render a decision, and if they wrongly
| refuse the request, they could be subject to a fine. This is
| problematic because there's almost zero incentive for the service
| provider to keep the content up, and plenty of potential downside
| if they keep the content up. Thus, the "safe" decision is to
| always comply with any request, regardless of merit. This is the
| same problem with DMCA, where every request gets rubberstamped,
| because if you don't comply with the request and it later turns
| out to be valid, you lose your safe harbor status and can be held
| liable for the infringement. Needless to say, this effect is
| terrible for free speech on the internet. Also, unlike court,
| there isn't any "defense" so to speak. Who is supposed to be
| representing the public interest or the author?
| thepangolino wrote:
| >The implementation of "right to be forgotten" is problematic.
| It forces service providers to take down content on the request
| of a complainant, without going through judicial approval
|
| How's that any different to DMCA takedowns?
| damnyou wrote:
| That's exactly what they said later in the post.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The application of the law as intended is not 'problematic', it
| is Google that is problematic in the sense that they seem to be
| of the opinion that the law does not apply to them. If you
| don't act in good faith and in fact try to interpret the law
| when it comes to the actions of private individuals then you
| really can not complain if the judiciary disagrees with you.
| That's a risk you took. Keep in mind that Google would have
| lost nothing if they had just complied with the request,
| instead, they decided to make a stand and show that they were
| in the right. Tough luck.
| kodablah wrote:
| > it is Google that is problematic in the sense that they
| seem to be of the opinion that the law does not apply to
| them.
|
| Except the article explicitly states:
|
| > Google refused to delete the search results. According to
| the Litigation Chamber, this was justified with regard to
| possible links with a political party
|
| It seems to me that the law only applies to them. One should
| be punished for trying to use the law to request things be
| deleted that are not illegal.
|
| > Keep in mind that Google would have lost nothing if they
| had just complied with the request
|
| This is scary, one-sided thinking. Google loses their ability
| to determine if the request is even a legal one if they
| comply blindly. Similarly the public accepts unnecessary
| content censorship.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Google does not get to make law in Belgium, they are
| _subject_ to the law in Belgium.
| kodablah wrote:
| Of course, nobody would argue otherwise. The point was at
| least some of request was invalid _by the law in
| Belgium_. So a reasonable person might read the article
| and conclude "one side didn't abide by a partially
| invalid request" and "another side submitted a partially
| invalid request". I am lacking on details of the issue at
| hand, but it's clearly stated some of the request is
| invalid.
|
| We have seen the consequences of invalid takedown
| requests in other situations (e.g. DMCA), and we should
| appreciate companies not just taking every takedown
| request at face value.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I read about this case when it was first filed and pretty
| much predicted the outcome, the error Google made was
| that they get to interpret the law in the way that suits
| them best instead of in the way that the individual
| affected would be best served. But that's something that
| many large American corporations seem to have issues
| with. You can expect a lot of clashes like these unless
| the coin really drops: privacy is important, and the
| effect of a decision by a company on someone's private
| life matters a lot in Europe. And judges will be more
| than happy to charge tuition fees until that lesson has
| been learned.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > The point was at least some of request was invalid by
| the law in Belgium.
|
| From what little information was provided in the article,
| it sounded like Google maintained that these search
| results were exempt from the law, because they were
| political in nature, so they stood their ground.
|
| However the DPA determined that these results were NOT
| exempt, due to the particular facts of the case (the
| results were "irrelevant and outdated"). So, keeping them
| up did not serve the public good (which, I resume, is the
| justification for these exemptions).
|
| To me, it sounds like Google chose the wrong test case to
| stand their ground on. I appreciate them taking a stand
| on keeping information available if it is important.
|
| But, crucially, Google claiming the request was invalid
| does not make it invalid; that's for the DPA to decide.
| emiliobumachar wrote:
| Seconded. If the data subject mixed into the request all
| data about them that they don't like, it seems reasonable
| for Google to stop analyzing as soon as they find something
| out of line.
| emiliobumachar wrote:
| As GP alluded, the potentially problematic endgame is that
| Google will have "learned their lesson" that they should just
| comply with requests, and it will look a lot like DMCA
| takedown requests on Youtube.
|
| Startup idea: crawl the web for mentions of client names, do
| automated sentiment analysis, file automated takedown request
| of all negative content.
| Jabbles wrote:
| This seems a bit one-sided. As the opening paragraph of the
| article says, there are very good reasons for not just
| complying with every request:
|
| _"The right to be forgotten must strike the correct balance
| between, on the one hand, the public's right of access to
| information and, on the other hand, the rights and interests
| of the data subject," said Hielke Hijmans, Director of the
| DPA's Litigation Chamber._
|
| Obviously, in this case, Google was wrong.
| jacquesm wrote:
| They were so obviously wrong that they could have saved
| themselves 600K, a bunch of legal fees and a serious dent
| in their privacy image. After all, the fact that a
| complaint is leveled against someone is not something that
| needs to follow that person the rest of their life if not
| substantiated.
|
| This is the reason why in many countries suspects are not
| named until conviction. So that they can clear their name
| in case the allegations are not substantiated enough to
| lead to conviction. Just being a suspect of anything should
| not ruin your life, even when you are a public figure. This
| as opposed to the United States where even just being a
| suspect can ruin your life easily, complete with mugshot
| and newspaper articles that detail the complaint but that
| never seem to find the resources to deal with the cases
| that don't make it to court or that fail to lead to a
| conviction. But that doesn't matter, in the court of public
| opinion the damage will be done.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Why is being forgotten a right at all? It seems as
| arbitrary to me as a right to strawberry icecream.
| Joeri wrote:
| You can appeal these fines in the court system if you want, and
| google always does this. Sometimes they win, sometimes they
| lose.
|
| There's no chilling effect on free speech that I can see. All
| speech is subject to GDPR, so it only matters when the speech
| is collected and how it is processed, not what the speech
| actually is. This is different from DMCA where whether a
| request is rightful or wrongful is determined by the content
| that the user provided. In the case of GDPR whether the request
| is wrongful is determined by your own actions as a controller,
| not any action of the user. Therefore the chilling effect is
| only on collecting and processing speech, not on the expression
| of it.
| gruez wrote:
| > You can appeal these fines in the court system if you want,
| and google always does this. Sometimes they win, sometimes
| they lose.
|
| So? Lawyers aren't free. If you appeal and end up not paying
| the fine, you're still out lawyer/court fees. At the end the
| the safe decision is still to always comply.
|
| >There's no chilling effect on free speech that I can see.
| All speech is subject to GDPR, so it only matters when the
| speech is collected and how it is processed, not what the
| speech actually is. This is different from DMCA where whether
| a request is rightful or wrongful is determined by the
| content that the user provided. In the case of GDPR whether
| the request is wrongful is determined by your own actions as
| a controller, not any action of the user. Therefore the
| chilling effect is only on collecting and processing speech,
| not on the expression of it.
|
| I'll be more direct. Person A accuses person B of being an
| unsavory individual (eg. neo-nazi) and makes a blog post
| about it. A few years pass. Person B runs for MEP, thinks
| that the accusation would be bad for his campaign, and files
| a "right to be forgotten" request. Google gets the request,
| knows it's probably bogus, but doesn't want the
| hassle/fines/legal fees from fighting it, and so complies
| with the request. The blog might still be up, but it's
| impossible to discover. You don't see the issue here?
| Kbelicius wrote:
| > The implementation of "right to be forgotten" is problematic.
| It forces service providers to take down content on the request
| of a complainant, without going through judicial approval. It's
| up to the service provider to render a decision, and if they
| wrongly refuse the request, they could be subject to a fine.
|
| That is not how it works. I'm guessing that some information is
| missing in this article. How it works is that you make a
| request to the service provider, if they refuse your request
| you can appeal to your Data Protection Agency. Only if the
| service provider fails to comply with DPA decision can it face
| legal action.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| The article reads as if this wasn't the case. Do you have a
| source that mentions this? Everything I can find reads
| exactly the same as DMCA, where there's no 'central
| authority' to listen to, but you're just expected to treat
| each request as if it was part of a lawsuit.
|
| This is especially insane, since this was undoubtably the
| action of an agent at Google, and we have no idea how many
| claims Google does properly handle. If each wrong handling is
| a 600k fine, you will quickly see every single request
| approved.
| xg15 wrote:
| There is no central authority for the whole of the EU,
| however there _are_ authorities for each member state.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I think you're exactly right. They won't achieve balance by
| levying massive fines for mistakes one way and nothing for
| mistakes the other way. Its the DMCA all over again: a license
| for anyone with a lawyer to control whats permitted.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| The DMCA does grant the target of a DMCA notice to sue the
| person who gives the notice for knowing material
| misrepresentation, including access to damages. But indeed
| it's been enforced very rarely and at very inadequate damage
| levels after subtracting legal fees. The main example of this
| provision being enforced is OPG v. Diebold: https://en.wikipe
| dia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold....
| tzs wrote:
| Except that's not how DMCA works. If your content gets taken
| down by a DMCA request, all you have to do is fill out a form
| stating that your content is not violating copyright, send it
| to the hosting service, and they are required to restore your
| content unless the take down requestor shows them proof that
| they have actually filed a lawsuit against you.
|
| Yes, I know that's not what happens at YouTube. YouTube has
| their own system for dealing with copyright complaints that
| they use instead of DMCA.
| b20000 wrote:
| you forget that people can bully each other online, sabotage
| businesses for no reason, and that the person or business
| bullied should have the right to have the content removed.
| gruez wrote:
| Whether or not "the right to be forgotten" can be used for
| "good" is irrelevant to the discussion on whether it's
| flawed, or can be abused. Just as mob justice can be used for
| "good" (eg. punishing individuals protected by a corrupt
| justice system), doesn't mean we should endorse it.
| tzs wrote:
| > This is the same problem with DMCA, where every request gets
| rubberstamped, because if you don't comply with the request and
| it later turns out to be valid, you lose your safe harbor
| status and can be held liable for the infringement.
|
| You've left out the other half of the DMCA. Yes, the take down
| request gets rubber stamped and your content goes down.
|
| But if you file a counter-notice with the provider saying the
| the content was not violating copyright, that too is rubber
| stamped and the provider is required to put the content back up
| unless the take down requestor shows that they have actually
| filed a copyright infringement suit against you.
|
| To get the content taken down and have it stay down the
| requestor has to go through the judicial system.
| Someone wrote:
| The statement from the DPA claims Google has proof the search
| results (about unproven accusations of bullying, years ago, for
| which the complainant was never prosecuted) were irrelevant and
| outdated (https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/nieuws/
| 600000-...), so step 3 seems to have included "the DPA asks
| Google for clarification".
|
| But yes, it seems the national DPAs have a lot of power without
| a (?clear?) way for appeal.
| pwdisswordfish2 wrote:
| The content is still "up". This request was only to remove the
| search results. Removal of the results means Google cannot
| profit from the content. However, the publishers of the content
| can still profit.
|
| "Right to be forgotten" enables people to ask search engines to
| remove certain results. It does not enable them to, e.g., ask
| newspapers to remove articles that contain accusations of
| harassment.
|
| As long as the articles remain available from the original
| publisher, the newspaper, the "right to be forgotten" has no
| effect on access to the information. What it does do is cut out
| the search engine online ad sales services middleman, the
| Google web search engine, and forces the reader to go to the
| original publisher of the information.
|
| A third party search engine could theoretically be purely
| objective in its presentation of search results however it
| could also be non-objective, e.g., biased in favour of
| advancing its own interests. Now the reader has an additional
| potential source of bias to deal with, besides the newspaper --
| the search engine.
|
| If "right to be forgotten" were the law of land worldwide, then
| perhaps it would put evolutionary pressure to develop
| innovative methodologies and mechanisms for web users to find
| information on the web without using third party middlemen,
| e.g., ad-supported web search engines. Currently, we have
| continuing evolutionary pressure to centralize all web access
| through a few third party websites, e.g., Google.
| walshemj wrote:
| One of the original complainants from Spain was some one
| trying to stop google showing results from documents in the
| public record I seem to remember
| vharuck wrote:
| As with everything, the devil's in the details. The Belgian
| Data Protection Authority agreed with Google about one set of
| info (possible political affiliation) and with the complainant
| on the other (unfounded harassment charges). From the article:
|
| >Google was "particularly negligent" according to the DPA,
| because it "had evidence that the facts were irrelevant and
| outdated."
|
| The article's thin on info, so I don't know if Google's able to
| appeal the fine and argue their case. I also don't know if the
| DPA gave Google a chance to remove the info before the fine.
| kodablah wrote:
| Read more to me like
|
| 1. the complainant told google to delete some things
|
| 2. google says no, some things include invalid request for
| political official
|
| 3. oh, it did include an invalid request, but the other part
| was valid, here is a fine
|
| One thing I would like to know is who will be getting fined for
| submitting an invalid request? I am also curious if anyone more
| familiar with the case knows whether a totally-valid request
| was submitted in whole and was similarly rejected. I admit not
| being familiar with the details beyond what I read in the link.
|
| On a general note, I completely agree with your concerns about
| the right to be forgotten and the unbalanced incentives. I
| applaud Google for pushing back.
| swarnie_ wrote:
| 600k is rounding error right?
| glial wrote:
| I bet it's cheaper than their legal fees.
| not2b wrote:
| It's about the revenue they pull in every two minutes.
| throwaway6263 wrote:
| I'm going to do the same to Tinder (Match). Just watch me.
| shrimpx wrote:
| It seems wrong to go in the direction of telling intermediaries
| to blacklist and curate traffic. The right thing is to develop a
| scalable way to notify sources to take down the content.
| Traster wrote:
| Does anyone know if Google is going to be solvent after this? If
| they have to liquidate or start shedding staff it could really
| impact them.
| gundmc wrote:
| Title is vague/misleading. I think it would be clearer to say
| "Google faces EUR600k fine for Right to Be Forgotten compliance".
| deadmutex wrote:
| Do you think it would've gotten so many upvotes/clicks if that
| was the case?
| tda wrote:
| Can someone do the math, how many seconds of profit is that for
| Google?
| gpm wrote:
| I think the better question is how many person months of profit
| it is.
|
| It doesn't make sense to punish people more for each offense
| just because they got together in a bigger group that does more
| things.
| [deleted]
| fmajid wrote:
| Actually it does. Finland calculates fines, e.g. speeding
| tickets, as a function of your income, otherwise the rich
| will treat them as a simple nuisance.
| gpm wrote:
| This is why I measure in person months and not dollars.
|
| You fine the speeder a fraction of their income (person
| months), not a fraction of their entire support networks
| income (months). Doing the latter would tend to discourage
| people from forming large support networks (large
| companies).
| Kbelicius wrote:
| It does make sense because fines also serve as a deterrent.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| But because they got together in a bigger group they can
| afford such fines easily and in order to be effective at all
| you need way stronger incentives.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sound like a case to be made for collusion
| gpm wrote:
| I think it is quite unlikely that the Gmail team had
| anything to do with the search teams decision here.
| Certainly I wouldn't expect them to be well enough informed
| about the legalities and the details of the case to be
| colluding.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| That is basically a senior engineer for a year.
| tspike wrote:
| Probably significantly cheaper once you factor perks, payroll
| tax, administrative overhead, etc.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's interesting but ultimately pointless, the way to look at
| this is as a signal: don't do this, it will be at least 600K
| per individual if you do it again. And knowing the way courts
| work a little bit that second violation is going to generate a
| lot more attention and a third is likely something that even
| the Google board would want to know about.
|
| Don't ignore the courts or they will make sure you notice them.
| Traster wrote:
| No, it's 600k per individual that successfully pursues this
| to the point where government regulators step in. I'd say
| it's quite likely that for every individual that gets this
| acted upon, there's a significant number that either (a)
| never complain, (b) don't have the political pull to get the
| regulators interested or (c) simply can't pass the burden of
| proof despite being in the right.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The agencies that determine the fines tend to add zeros
| with every further violation. Feel free to experiment until
| you get tired of it.
| pythux wrote:
| I was thinking that some of their engineers must be making more
| than that. Seems like a fine they will not even notice...
| netcan wrote:
| 11 seconds of revenue, maybe 45 of profit.
| CraftThatBlock wrote:
| Google spends ~2.5B in operating expenses per week, so that's a
| rounding error.
| dmos62 wrote:
| If anyone cares to look at a small number: 600 thousand
| divided by 2.5 billion is 0.00024. That's 2.4 percent of 1
| percent.
| sleepyhead wrote:
| It is one case. Obviously the fine cannot be extreme. However
| GDPR fines can go up to 4% of revenue. But such a fine would be
| based on many users, not just one.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's time that courts come to terms with the amount of money
| companies now control. A 600k fine is quite large if an
| individual. For a large corp, it's a rounding error. If a court
| wants to signal they are unhappy with the behavior of a corp,
| then they really need to adjust their punishment. These corps
| have money that rival nation states, and should be treated as
| such.
| goodpoint wrote:
| It's pretty common to punish corps with a slap on the wrist
| followed by the threat of doing it again every few years if
| the behavior does not change.
|
| The fine is equivalent to $5 and 57c comparing google revevue
| VS average US gross income.
|
| What message is the court really sending?
|
| > These corps have money that rival nation states
|
| Rival? These corps can afford the best politicians that money
| can buy.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Bear in mind this is for a single violation, not a widespread
| noncompliance issue. Considering the number of RTBF
| complaints Google fields (I believe it's north of a million
| by now), a large number of violations would ratchet up the
| costs significantly.
|
| This is probably a good example of RTBF working as intended.
| For as loud as Google was opposing to it, they've done, on
| average, a reasonably good job complying with it (people who
| know me should know I do not give Google more credit than
| they deserve, ever), and penalties like this for individual
| failures seem reasonable for the impact on the individuals
| who file them.
|
| RTBF for better or worse places the burden of deciding how to
| respond to a request on Google, not an independent judiciary.
| That cuts down a lot of red tape, but I think it also means
| the appeals process can't be too harsh on the penalty here:
| The trial court usually isn't penalized for being overturned
| on appeal.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And also a first violation of this kind for this court. A
| second one would likely not pass unnoticed. A case here in
| NL where a hospital first got warned then got fined a small
| amount and then got fined a - for that hospital - massive
| amount certainly put them on notice. That's an error that
| will not be repeated a fourth time.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| The key concept here seems to be that Google decided that a
| public figure shouldn't be able to have something forgotten
| (which is reasonable, and in line with Right To Be Forgotten),
| but failed to account for the fact that something proven to be
| inaccurate or unfounded should still be able to be forgotten
| because it isn't true.
|
| The latter issue is particularly important, as someone should not
| be permanently be harmed by a mere accusation of wrongdoing.
| Accusations should not follow someone after they've proven
| inaccurate.
| cookiengineer wrote:
| According to lumendatabase the defamation complaints were filed
| 8 times by her lawyer about a private video (that seemingly was
| uploaded without her consent to porn websites) where she
| appeared as a "hooker from Brussels".
|
| I think this is a serious human rights issue, in times where
| not everybody knows what's actually going on on their mobile
| devices, where Android malware is not a joke anymore and
| commonly spread around.
|
| I mean, just imagine the same case that your private pictures
| or videos get uploaded to a porn website and Google simply
| ignores your legal complaints to take those down ... social-
| and work-life must be a living hell from that point on.
| bzb3 wrote:
| My personal recommendation is not to take those pictures and
| videos to begin with. Once it leaks, it's over.
| megous wrote:
| Malware can take them for you, and it doesn't need to be
| your phone either. Maybe your gf is playing some mobile
| game, while pointing the camera at you... which is pretty
| reasonable situation.
|
| That's what people get for trying to put every function
| into a single device...
| RicardoLuis0 wrote:
| and with deepfakes and the likes getting every day less
| distinguishable from real footage, the situation can be
| much, much worse
| ideals wrote:
| Is there a website which collects and tracks the fines tech
| companies incur?
|
| I wonder how much Google, FB, etc have paid in fines in Europe
| and elsewhere over the years and the frequency of these fines.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| https://www.enforcementtracker.com
|
| As you can see, not many fines compared to the large-scale
| privacy violations these companies are committing.
| ideals wrote:
| Thanks for the link! My only complaint would be this is
| restricted to only gdpr fines but there are more which
| occurred before gdpr was a thing and fines outside of the EU.
|
| I'll do some more searching though since it seems likely it
| exists in full exhaustive format
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| This is a lesson that Google really needs to learn. If you've
| ever been on the wrong side of Google you know that they will
| dodge you like you are collecting debts and often the only way to
| get their attention is to shame them in the media, back channel
| someone you know, or engage them in court. They probably could
| have avoided this fee entirely just by answering the phone and
| realizing that the automation missed something.
|
| I try really hard to like Google because overall they have done a
| lot of good, but sometimes it's just jaw dropping how a company
| with so many smart people fails so badly at the most basic
| things.
| gchamonlive wrote:
| maybe the cost of answering the phone and putting the effort to
| fix something that automation missed, case by case, outweights
| the risk of getting this kind of fine.
|
| This is why punishment should be exemplar, read
| disproportionate, and the basic customer support should be
| enforced by law. Otherwise companies will just take the cheap
| way out and risk lawsuits.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-07-14 23:01 UTC)