1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 9 months ago

Oh no, poor google. They will never financially recover from this.

  • source
  • 56 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 115 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    Settlements should not be allowed in cases where its companies versus people.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    You'd rather have them drag it out in court until the person can't afford to fight the case?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (7 children)

    Settlements only happen with the consent of both parties. I don't see that as a problem. If you really don't want a settlement, then opt out of the class action and bring your own case or do what you can to make sure the lawyer for the class action won't settle. That I suppose is unlikely, as the lawyer will do whatever ends up being the most likely win case scenario in their opinion and the number of people in the class action will probably mean you have no individual say in it (not sure how that particular piece works but no class action suit that approached me gave me any options for what I wanted out of it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I don't think it should be acceptable to buy your way out of a court case which reveals truth and justice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    But are you sure you don't want to opt out and go 1v1 vs a trillion dollar company???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    These are civil cases, buying your way out is all that happens in the best of circumstances in a civil case. It is just a matter of how much you have to pay to buy out. Punitive damages might do some extra justice, but what would that be? In the end you have to imagine that some radom person has sued you unjustly and decide how you want an innocent person to be treated, or perhaps they sued you with some small real point to their lawsuit, do you want the default to be that you are ruined? Maybe you didn't intend harm, but want to either make amends or at least get past the lawsuit so you can get on with your life, do you want no recourse possible?

    In the end, if Google was forced out of business, many(most) of us would be way worse off. That is not the ideal outcome. Ideally, the case brings enough money to the plaintiff to right any hardship caused and, in the case of punitive damages, does just enough hardship to the defendant that they are dissuaded from pursuing that course of action, but you aren't trying to kill them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago*

    As far as I'm aware the lawyers didn't consult with the class-action members, or at the very least I was never asked if we should accept the settlement or not, the lawyers just accepted. Alternatively you could opt out of the settlement if you wanted, which is what I chose to do, mostly because the settlement amount was far too low, in my opinion, and they required signing and accepting an NDA which I was not willing to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Oh, yeah. That $3.07 settlement covers the damages with a little to spare. Now I can put a down-payment on some French fries.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    It's less about making you whole and more about hurting the corporation. Although that's a drop in the bucket for Alphabet. "Cost of doing business".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    I mean, really, you probably have $0 worth of damages to worry about. If something in particular happens, like corporate espionage hurting your business that causes real damage, then you have the freedom to sue for that particular thing. (Supposing you aren't locked out by the settlement.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

    I was originally part of this class-action. When the lawyers decided to settle I refused to accept the settlement, purely because Google admitted no fault and also required us to agree that we couldn't ever sue over the issue again in the future even if new evidence came to light. The dollar amount they offered wasn't tiny (it wasn't large by any means either), but I felt it was in no way a valid amount for what was being claimed. Not to mention the lawyers were taking close to or maybe more than half of the settlement money, which I find offensive considering they decided to settle the case and allow Google to wash their hands of the matter. Luckily I reserved my right to sue again in the future, but I'd either have to go at it alone or try to form a new class-action suite. I'm still incredibly disappointed that the lawyers handling the case backed down and took the settlement, I would have rather lost the case and discovered the truth than take a pittance and let Google off.

    Edit: I almost forgot, the most aggregious requirement to the settlement was the non-disclosure agreement that you had to accept which meant you couldn't say anything at all about the settlement or the case if you took the money. It also appeared to me that they were trying to apply the non-disclosure even if you didn't take the settlement, which I don't know how you can be held to a NDA if you haven't signed and accepted the NDA. The whole thing smelled of bullshit to me.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Buying themselves free, how convenient.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    All these companies are spying on you. You cannot convince me otherwise. Too many suspect conversations have led to targeted ads and the like that make no sense UNLESS they’re always listening.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Google really needs to be shut down.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Currently in the process of migrating out of their system now. I’ll keep my account and gmail addresses for rubbish and using Earth or Maps when necessary but I’ve moved all the important stuff to Proton and I’ve stopped using Chrome.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago

    I was recently sitting with a bunch of workers in a welding shop where I was having some work done, and we were discussing a particular piece of unusual equipment with a very unusual variation. In other words, not something that would normally come up in a normal conversation.

    One of the guys gets a notification, looks at his phone, and there is an ad for this weird piece of equipment that I'd never even heard of before. He gasped, and held his phone up for the rest to see. Apparently, this had happened before, and they'd all been discussing it. Now it happened again.

    They're spying on us every minute. I saw the proof that day.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    68 m&m's? hey big spender!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    Google spying on its users? To push ads? Preposterous!

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    68M won't do shit but give a slap on the wrist. Make the amount in the billions and they'll learn.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Make it more than they earned, plus a large percentage, and factor in how likely they were to get caught. At the size of Google, companies are essentially just big statistics machines, doing risk/reward calculations. Imagine you have an illegal business opportunity that could make you $100M in profit per week. Your risk of getting caught is estimated at ~25% per week. And your fine for getting caught is $150M per week. Even though the fine is higher than the expected profit, your net profit per week averages out to +$62.5M.

    That is the original $100M, minus the $150M*25% (or $37.5M total). Yes, some weeks will be a loss. But if the numbers stay consistent, you’ll make more in the long term simply due to the fact that you don’t get caught every time. As long as you manage to avoid getting caught for at least two weeks, (which shouldn’t be difficult, considering the 25% estimated chance of regulators catching on) you’ve already made enough money to cover the fine.

    Of course the company will do the illegal thing, because the math says it will likely be profitable. And even if they’re caught, it was just the price of doing business. As long as they made more than the expected fine over the given time period, they have profited.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago

    68 million is probably a rounding error in their yearly lawyer budget alone.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    So Apple paid for the same thing a couple of years ago, and Google pays for it now. Two of the biggest "phone/os" companies do spy on people and now it's a confirmed fact.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    $68 million is chump change to Google.

    This is like me getting a speeding fine for $1.

    This is the cost of doing business for them.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    They had to pay pennies while hoarding in a huge profit. Well, that will teach them!

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Google did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement of the class-action case

    A settlement is an admission no matter what Google says. Headline should read, "Google Admits To Using Its Consumer Hardware To Spy On Users."

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    A settlement is an admission

    I mean it's an "admission" that it would cost more money to fight in court than it would to make it go away. Or that they would likely lose, regardless of whether they're guilty of anything. Other than that, no.

  • source
  • parent
  • I wonder why these companies wouldn't want to go to discovery and further with such cases. Surely to have a clear, clean name they'd take these to the end showing they were not liable. It's a read between the lines scenario, they're afraid of discovery for some reason so don't want it to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Always the easy way out, littery a drop in the ocean, with zero actual consequences, these companies drink champagne and celebrate every time they receive this kind of a verdict

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    That is a paltry amount, whomever the class action lawyers are did a shit job, and should've taken it to a jury.

    No doubt they figured a judge would overturn any large judgement though, the judges being so thoroughly captured by the rich, especially appeals courts and higher.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    NOT ENOUGH.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    My understanding of false accepts is when it think it hears the wake word and starts recording.

    Sometimes it happens when I watch TV or rarely in a normal conversation.

    If this happens, what else would you expect to happen? It's going to behave exactly as if you woke it.

    Stop talking if you notice, but unless you expect a perfect wake word rate with zero mistakes there's nothing that can be done.

    Now, if Google is intentionally waking it when it knows it's not the right word that's another matter entirely.

    Edit: I'd refuse to accept any wrong doikg as well if it's legit false accepts. But if it was intentional, this isn't even a slap on the wrist for them.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Yeah them and every other tech company that has apps. The punishments should be much higher for companies who violate people's rights

  • source
  • 10 comments in c/degoogle@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 38 points 9 months ago

    So basically, a minimal cost of business? This won't deter them from the next violation. Probably paid with a smile on their faces

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Didn't see it in the article, but who gets this money? Do they send the 4 billion people using Android $0.017 for illegally spying on them?

    The idea that sending the money to the people would cost outrageously more than the payout shows how ludicrously small the payout is.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago

    That's not even 0.05% of what Alphabet earn in 2025. So it's peanuts, they continue to harm and do whatever they want.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    These fines are so toothless, it's pathetic.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe I can get Google's lawyers to help settle a lawsuit my neighbors brought against me for installing spycams in all their bathrooms for a similar portion of my exorbitant wealth. Every neighbor will get an IOU for $0.000069.

    Soooorry. We're sooooo sorry. Pwease forgive us... actually we don't care if you forgive us. This settlement prohibits any further indemnification. No wrongdoing, and you're libeling us if you say otherwise. See ya'll in court next week.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    My lab had a very specific discussion about very specific reagent on Zoom and the next day I got ads for it.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    So a % of a % of a % of their profits

    That will most surely teach these criminals.

    CAN. WE. PLEASE. START. JAILING. CRIMINALS. THAT. BREAK. THE. LAW.

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 19 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    So their voice assistant did spy on users then.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 2 comments in c/google@lemdro.id view that post
    [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    There should be no settling.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    It's the perfect example of how capitalism is incompatible with democracy and the rule of law.

    If you can just pay your way out of consequences of breaking the law, then we have neither democracy nor law.

  • source
  • parent