|
Hah! That's trivial pocket change.
You want a real fine? Break GDPR regulations: The UK GDPR and DPA 2018 set a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4% of annual global turnover – whichever is greater – for infringements.
The Eu will fine you the same amount (depending on currency fluctuations), depending on the severity. A less serious breach gets you a lower fine:
The less severe infringements could result in a fine of up to €10 million, or 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, whichever amount is higher. They include any violation of the articles governing:
Still want to store your passwords in clear text? 
[edit]
I just checked, and ... :gulp:
For Google, based on the last years financial statement, that 4% fine is £5,131,143,628 - 5 Billion pounds, or 7.25 Billion dollars US ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's high. But remember that it $50,000 per record. Do have any idea how many records (multiple per patient) that is, and the number of patients they are talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: Greed knows no bounds.
Data is google's business. It doesn't always have to be about greed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SeanChupas wrote: Data Advertising is google's business.
FTFW. Which should now answer the obvious follow-up question, which is why they're collecting that data.
It is all about greed.
I'm going to assume you're not really believing they're a benevolent company.
|
|
|
|
|
No, they are a data company. They make data useful. Yes, they also run ads.
No, google is a corrupt company.
Stop assuming things.
|
|
|
|
|
They'd make no money if they didn't do anything with that data. It's their selling of that data, to advertisers, that keeps Google in business. They're an advertising company, no matter what Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking.
Here's an interesting (and relatively recent) article that a quick, ahem, google search came up with:
https://blog.smei.org/google-search-engine-advertising-company/
SMEI calls itself a "worldwide professional association for sales & marketing". You'd think they'd choose their words in such an article rather carefully.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking.
Right to the insults. 
|
|
|
|
|
So that was your trigger, huh? Sorry, I keep forgetting the world has mostly turned into a bunch of snowflakes.
You can go lie down and come back to me after you've recovered.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: trigger
I do not think that means what you think it means.
|
|
|
|
|
Re-read the last few messages. According to you, "drinking the Kool-Aid" amounts to an insult.
Maybe you don't want to call it a trigger, but you sure show all the signs of letting small things get to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: anonymous patient data.
Sure. In the same way that when you "delete" your data from Google, it just means it clears out what you have access to when you subsequently request what they know about you.
|
|
|
|
|
I am fairly confident that no HIPAA laws will be broken. I am also fairly confident that Google is operating on this project within the confines of the law.
Member 14840496 wrote: Greed knows no bounds.
Google is in the business to make money, among other things. I would think people would know this by now.
|
|
|
|
|
With the increase in hacking that is going on today, I would be careful about stating "fairly confident".
Nobody said they were not operating within the law; that is, until patient data gets loose. However, I am fairly confident that if YOUR medical history, or someone in your family's medical history got all over the internet, you would be the first to complain.
The statement echoes so many of the true life crimes where the people always say "we never thought that would happen here, to us".
Amazing naiveté.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: , I am fairly confident that if YOUR medical history, or someone in your family's medical history got all over the internet, you would be the first to complain.
Why? Are you embarrassed by your medical history?
If someone posted that you were treated for a heart attack on such and such a date and then had your tonsils out another date, then had gonorrhea on this date, etc., etc., I would not care. Why do you?
And if someone did steal data they are going to steal millions of files so if they post millions of patients data the likelihood that anyone who knows you will see your data is very slim.
Don't misunderstand, I am all for privacy, but if someone's health care data is leaked, I have zero interest in finding out what the leaked data is. You could not pay me to go looking at the stolen data.
|
|
|
|
|
Embarrassed - no. No STD's in my records. Yours?
Life insurance companies would love to have medical histories.
Some employers would too.
But I am glad YOU wouldn't want to look at them. lol.
I get the feeling that some people in here have Google stock.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: Life insurance companies would love to have medical histories.
They usually ask for that anyway.
Member 14840496 wrote: I get the feeling that some people in here have Google stock.
Everybody should. It performs very well.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
|
|
|
|
|
What suspicions? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I thought you were being serious. Good day then.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, here we go. The ol' "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" fallacy...
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: fallacy
Why is it a fallacy?
What do we have to worry about? If the threat is real then you should be able to quantify it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
