this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
737 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

72362 readers
2782 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gowron_Howard@lemmy.world 26 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

A fine is the cost of doing business. Unless something changes they’ll keep doing it.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It's just the government's cut since they don't pay much in taxes.

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 3 points 5 hours ago

And it isn't like the victims see any of it

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

The linked Reuters article provides a bit more context:

The jury agreed with the plaintiffs that Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O), was liable for sending and receiving information from the devices without permission while they were idle, causing what the lawsuit had called "mandatory and unavoidable burdens shouldered by Android device users for Google's benefit."

[…]

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that the company would appeal, and that the verdict "misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices."

[–] trashboat@midwest.social 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

opens new tab

the verdict "misunderstands services that are critical to the security, performance, and reliability of Android devices."

Ummmm maybe I’m misunderstanding but how on earth is opening a new tab critical to security and performance?

[–] gex@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I think that's just part of the label of a link to Google's stock ticker

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Yes, indeed this was just a copy error. Thanks for pointing it out.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 43 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Don’t we ban Chinese phones for the same actions?

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 hours ago
[–] ramenshaman@lemmy.world 28 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

cries in cheap phone that doesn't flash GrapheneOS

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 70 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Years ago, when this policy was first being contemplated, someone at google plugged a number, likely larger than this, into a spreadsheet analyzing the cost/benefit of spying on their customers.

This is just post-activation operating expense from their perspective.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 81 points 12 hours ago (7 children)

Google made 100 billion last year.

300 million is barely a blip.

The fine should have been 30 billion.

if the fines arent big enough to seriously hurt a company, Then the fines are not big enough to change their behavior.

They just become a tax on evil.

[–] Kekzkrieger@feddit.org 21 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

If you earn like 100k a year its like being slapped with a 300 $ fine just to put it into perspective.

[–] onesixone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 7 hours ago

100k AFTER all your expenses.

[–] glorptex@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago

They should definitely be higher than what they are, even the GDPR fines are a joke, its likely added to a line "legal expenses" in their expenses.

While it looks like the EU fines are ramping up over time, it still just feels silly right now. But I guess that is intentional.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] misterdoctor@lemmy.world 82 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Alt text: a screenshot from final fantasy tactics with a character saying: “If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.”

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

That's actually shopped. The game's writer said he wishes he wrote that line, though.

[–] Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 34 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Assuming the fine isn't progressive, of course.

Over here in Finland fines for any but the minor offences are defined in percents of income, not in fixed sums of money. There have been cases of traffic fines of several hundreds of thousands for going 30 km/h over the speed limit. That makes them a punishment for very richest people as well, not only for the lower class.

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 7 hours ago

Except capital income can be hidden in other countries, still giving an unfair advantage to the super rich.

[–] DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world 147 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Google in 2024: Net profit: $100 billion

The government: "here is a tiny fine that you can't even see in a microscope."

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I agree, but one thing that people always miss with these kinds of rulings is that they generally come with increased oversight and greater fines for repeat offenses. They're more likely to be caught if they try it again, and it'll grow until it actually hurts.

Still, this should be a lot larger. They should be trying to dissuade first-time offenses as well, not letting them take advantage of the system for profit because it won't hurt much when they're found out.

[–] DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

In theory, yes, but governments won't do that. They worry that corporations would leave their states and they lose on employment and tax revenue. That's why they fine them very carefully to begin with.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago

If you're talking about the first paragraph, then no, that's literally what they do.

[–] xorollo@leminal.space 42 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

That does nothing to help anyone hurt by the actions.

[–] DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world 21 points 11 hours ago

Hey, they're gonna get their $2.97 checks. That's a gallon of gas somewhere.

[–] lukaro@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 hours ago

I don't chase dropped pennies, and I don't think google does either!

[–] CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world 102 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

That’s a rounding error for them.

[–] Townlately@feddit.nl 28 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] voodooattack@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago

So small it’s almost imaginary

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

That's 1/85 of the watch that Ramzan Kadyrov's son sported on his wedding.

Or one can just compare it to the share of Google's profits in California.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 48 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

So of the billions they made with that they have to pay a small fee.

Oh noes

Jail them!

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 11 hours ago

Jail them!

In prison gen pop. Make execs afraid to break the law for profit and/or fund reform for the prison system.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Probably won't have to pay. They're appealing.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 23 points 14 hours ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

Break the law and pay 0.014% of your market cap, or 0.31% of their 2024 profit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 15 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Doesn't sound like the suit was about the collection at all and just about the data transmission costing users mobile data usage.

Vague articles are vague.

[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

So when are we all finally going to ditch Google/Apple and move on to actual FOSS phones like Librem5 or Fairphone?

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago

When Librem stops sucking ass and Fairphone stops being just as bad as any other Android phone in terms of integrating Google services and allowing data collection

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 20 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

When they are good.

Another problem I have is multifactor apps. Can I get duo on a Linux phone? Or banking apps? Some software sends notifications to the phone to log in on a computer, for example.

I'm sure I could get around it, but ultimately I just want a good camera.

[–] HiddenLychee@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

Yeah, I need to know that Microsoft authenticator, duo mobile, all banking and trading apps, Venmo, and steam guard work on Linux. I know a lot of banking apps do, but if duo mobile doesn't, I'm locked out of my work.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Which one allows me to actually control my phone and reject all the updates?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›