this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
949 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59665 readers
3278 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
949
Amazon saved children's voices recorded by Alexa even after parents asked for it to be deleted. Now it's paying a $25 million fine. (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Amazon saved children's voices recorded by Alexa even after parents asked for it to be deleted. Now it's paying a $25 million fine.::"For too long, Amazon has treated children's sensitive data as its own property," Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay, said in a statement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bearr 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fines like this should be calculated based on % of corporations net assets. Something like this, say 5-10%. That would at least get their attention.

Same with personal fines honestly, percentage of income or total wealth, depending on the crime.

[–] MisterFrog 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Definitely should be based on current net worth of assets, else someone who just lives off borrowings against assets pays nothing as they have no or little income when compared to their total.

[–] FuglyDuck 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Or just count loans as income for tax reasons.

[–] MisterFrog 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This could get iffy unless well defined. Else when people take out a loan for a house suddenly they have hundreds of thousands in income, which they would then need to pay tax on again when they earn money to pay it back.

[–] FuglyDuck 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don’t generally pay taxes paying a loan back.

What they do is take out more loans- specifically, on the increase of value their capital had.

You do pay taxes on the sale of the house when that comes, however, in proportion to the capital gains from its sale.

It wouldn’t be hard to carve out an exception for loans under a certain value (possibly, a net cap on total loans. Or some combination there of.) and then exclude mortgages under an appropriate limit, however

[–] MisterFrog 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's my thinking. Gotta define what cash from loans is taxable.

What I mean by paying tax on paying it back: you had to earn that money, typically from income, which is taxed. So if you had to pay tax on your original loan you would get taxed twice.

But yeah, as long as it's well-defined, might be a good choice.

I'm sure the billionaires will line the correct pockets to get out of it in any country, though :(