Verizon fined $1.3M for supercookie header injection - Polidicks

[quote=pdf] In December 2014, the Bureau began an investigation into Verizon Wireless after news stories raised privacy concerns with its use of UIDH and the Commission received related consumer complaints. [...] Section 222 of the Act imposes a duty on carriers to protect their customers’ proprietary information and use such information only for authorized purposes. It also expressly prohibits carriers that obtain proprietary information from other carriers for the provision of telecommunications services to use such information for any other purpose. [...] The Bureau’s investigation found that although [B]Verizon Wireless began inserting UIDH into consumers’ Internet traffic as early as December 2012[/B], the Company[B] did not disclose this practice until October 2014[/B]. [B]It was not until March 2015 —over two years later— that Verizon Wireless updated its privacy policy to include information about UIDH.[/B] The Bureau’s investigation also found that at least one of Verizon Wireless’s advertising partners used UIDH for unauthorized purposes to circumvent consumers’ privacy choices by restoring deleted cookies. In addition, the Bureau’s investigation found that Verizon Wireless inserted UIDH into the Internet traffic made from mobile device lines, including enterprise, government, and Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) lines, which were ineligible to participate in Verizon Wireless’s targeted advertising programs. [/quote] Source: [url]https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0307/DA-16-242A1.pdf[/url]

I'm sure Verizon is getting ready to file for bankruptcy over that 1.3m.

How about 1.3b? maybe then they'll actually notice, 1.3 million dollars for verizon is like dropping a penny in a gutter

Fines for companies should be on a percent of income basis. No point fining a company 1b over some law they ignored and made 2b because of it.

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;49890923]Fines for companies should be on a percent of income basis. No point fining a company 1b over some law they ignored and made 2b because of it.[/QUOTE] Fixed fines never make sense. A $360 speeding fine may do irreparable harm to one's balance. Meanwhile, the same fine will have virtually no impact — or lesson — to the wealthy who will happily continue speeding away.

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;49890923]Fines for companies should be on a percent of income basis. No point fining a company 1b over some law they ignored and made 2b because of it.[/QUOTE] Indeed. Companies will decide to break the law if it will be probably or certainly profitable.

ISPs need a reform desperately.

Am i getting this right? These "supercookies" contained header information that if deleted the ad service would secretly re-download these cookies on your computer?

They probably made 1.3M in the first minute of operations...

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49890981]Fixed fines never make sense. A $360 speeding fine may do irreparable harm to one's balance. Meanwhile, the same fine will have virtually no impact — or lesson — to the wealthy who will happily continue speeding away.[/QUOTE] I recall speeding tickets being based on income in Sweden [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] Sorry it was Finland. "In 2009 a businessman was fined €112,000 for travelling at 82 kilometres per hour in an area with a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour." [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine#Finland[/url]

I like how it effected government traffic and they still only fined them 1.3M. Should charge every verizon exec for treason and just be done with it.

[QUOTE=draugur;49894143]I like how it effected government traffic and they still only fined them 1.3M. Should charge every verizon exec for treason and just be done with it.[/QUOTE] Why is it that anyone you hear mention "treason" have no idea what it means?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49894158]Why is it that anyone you hear mention "treason" have no idea what it means?[/QUOTE] It's a buzz term that conveys a point because not everyone is a super lawyer who has the big book of laws for every nation on the planet comitted to memory, thanks for being needlessly pedantic though, really doesn't add anything to the discussion at hand, which is, "why is a company allowed to get away with blatantly illegal practices when it involves the government where if little Johnny-no-name did anything remotely simiar he'd be waterboarded by the CIA for being a suspected terrorist.", just in case you were too busy being nitpicky to catch that. Seeing as how you've decided to play the pedantic zinger route, I may as well oblige and inform you that technically Verizon's actions fit the definition of espionage or the conspiracy to commit espionage at the least, which is considered an act of treason by law so.. Thanks for playing I guess?

[QUOTE=draugur;49894308]It's a buzz term that conveys a point because not everyone is a super lawyer who has the big book of laws for every nation on the planet comitted to memory, thanks for being needlessly pedantic though, really doesn't add anything to the discussion at hand, which is, "why is a company allowed to get away with blatantly illegal practices when it involves the government where if little Johnny-no-name did anything remotely simiar he'd be waterboarded by the CIA for being a suspected terrorist.", just in case you were too busy being nitpicky to catch that. Seeing as how you've decided to play the pedantic zinger route, I may as well oblige and inform you that technically Verizon's actions fit the definition of espionage or the conspiracy to commit espionage at the least, which is considered an act of treason by law so.. Thanks for playing I guess?[/QUOTE] But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with treason and its not espionage, either.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49894690]But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with treason and its not espionage, either.[/QUOTE] "The Bureau’s investigation also found that at least one of Verizon Wireless’s advertising partners used UIDH for unauthorized purposes to circumvent consumers’ privacy choices by restoring deleted cookies. In addition, the Bureau’s investigation found that Verizon Wireless inserted UIDH into the Internet traffic made from mobile device lines, including enterprise, government, and Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) lines..." Espionage is literally just the process of obtaining information that is not publically available. By restoring deleted cookies and inserting UIDH into internet traffic without the consent of the participating parties, which includes in this case parties that should have never been eligible for this program anyway (government lines), it is indeed just that, industrial/corporate espionage. They were accessing information that they were not authorised to access, that's literally the criteria for the label, it doesn't have to be related to giving secrets away to the soviets or whatever Hollywood taught you.

They didn't actually restore cookies. They did inject the header, but they didn't actually save any of the information. They didn't spy on anybody. Spying implies they saved information about the requests. They did not.

So you're saying the article is blatantly lying then because it literally says that in the quote I took from the article.

How did you twist that from my post? I simply said and explained that it wasn't espionage.

[QUOTE=Strontboer;49893959]I recall speeding tickets being based on income in Sweden [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] Sorry it was Finland. "In 2009 a businessman was fined €112,000 for travelling at 82 kilometres per hour in an area with a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour." [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine#Finland[/url][/QUOTE] Most Scandinavian countries as well as a few others like Germany has fines that work like that. They are called Dagsböter here (just Day Fines translated)

[QUOTE=draugur;49894308]It's a buzz term that conveys a point because not everyone is a super lawyer who has the big book of laws for every nation on the planet comitted to memory, thanks for being needlessly pedantic though, really doesn't add anything to the discussion at hand, which is, "why is a company allowed to get away with blatantly illegal practices when it involves the government where if little Johnny-no-name did anything remotely simiar he'd be waterboarded by the CIA for being a suspected terrorist.", just in case you were too busy being nitpicky to catch that. Seeing as how you've decided to play the pedantic zinger route, I may as well oblige and inform you that technically Verizon's actions fit the definition of espionage or the conspiracy to commit espionage at the least, which is considered an act of treason by law so.. Thanks for playing I guess?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=draugur;49897636]So you're saying the article is blatantly lying then because it literally says that in the quote I took from the article.[/QUOTE] 1. You need settle down a bit. This is not treason, i.e. aiding an enemy in a time of war. Treason begets a death sentence, this is not a proportional crime. 2. You type like a little dick.