Google: Attorneys Determine, Your Privacy is Worth About $5, But No More Than $12

[Nside]

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-plus-class-action-settlement-how-to-claim-cash-payment-2020-8

A settlement was made in the class action lawsuit brought against the company regarding the private details of their "users" (AKA, livestock) being leaked over their failed Google+ Social Media Service.

If you had an account on the "Facebook Killer" app run by google between 2015 and April 2019, Google is going to pay for their mishandling of your private information.
How much is everyone's privacy worth? $7.5 Million (with an M) total, including attorney fees and expenses.
That's an estimated <$5 per user, but you could get up to $12 if enough people don't even bother filling the form out! (WOOHOO!)

So if you ever think that companies that handle your personal data would be held liable should they massively screw up and leak it, think again. Google is worth about $800 Billion. $7.5M is less than they give to most charities at any given time. This isn't even like paying a parking ticket to them. Google probably paid more than $7.5 Million to their own attorneys just to get out of bed that morning.

 

[GSDragoon]

Amazing ROI for Google on that investment.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Would be nice to live in a world where money doesn't just get a multi-billion dollar (are they trillion dollar yet considering all the umbrella companies?) off the hook for doing bad things. Like seriously, you did something you're not supposed, fine you're not allowed to sell information of users again for the next 10 years that's your punishment.

 

[c3k]

Would be nice to live in a world where money doesn't just get a multi-billion dollar (are they trillion dollar yet considering all the umbrella companies?) off the hook for doing bad things. Like seriously, you did something you're not supposed, fine you're not allowed to sell information of users again for the next 10 years that's your punishment.

I would like to see top three tiers of management and the entire board of directors be banned from ever being employed in a publicly traded company...for life. Break a law: no more workee.

And the company would be banned from that sector of commerce for ten years.

And customers could sue the individuals, not just the corporation, if they violate rules and laws. (Piercing the corporate veil.)

I think that would make companies, and those who run them, a bit more judicious in hewing to the law.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Google has shown their willingness to do this again and again. If you’re still using Google products, then you’ve taken your own privacy into your own hands.

 

[Aireoth]

Google has shown their willingness to do this again and again. If you’re still using Google products, then you’ve taken your own privacy into your own hands.

I hate to break it to you, but it isn't just google, and your already SOL. this convo really needs to shift from the illusion of privacy we all have, to the reality that privacy doesn't exist and how do we attempt to be responsible with all this data.

 

[SunnyD]

Google has shown their willingness to do this again and again. If you’re still using Google products, then you’ve taken your own privacy into your own hands.

Replace google with:
- Apple
- Microsoft
- Experian
- Equifax
- Transunion
- BofA
- Citi
- ... do I really need to go on?

As long as advertising dollars and politicians-for-hire exist, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy.

 

[Aireoth]

Replace google with:
- Apple
- Microsoft
- Experian
- Equifax
- Transunion
- BofA
- Citi
- ... do I really need to go on?

As long as advertising dollars and politicians-for-hire exist, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy.

- Homedepot
- credit cards
- payment processors
- the healthcare complex
- Clearview AI
- facebook

to name a few more.

In short, I just came to the conclusion that yes, given the prevalence of information and avenues that sell/leak/lose it, yeah, your personal information is worth about 5$ net. gross is probably 50 or 60 bucks.

 

[SunnyD]

Also, for what it's worth, my privacy data for the period of 2015-2019 (the class period) is worth no less than $75.34. That number is figured by taking Google's total revenue for the period in question ($572.17 billion), and dividing it by earth's total population (7.594 billion, estimated, 2018). Now in all fairness, I doubt that 100% of the population uses google, let alone knows what google is, so if you cut the number of "users" google reaches in half, that number doubles to about $150. That's a fairly optimistic estimate. I would guess that Google revenue wouldn't count more than about 2 billion "users", which would yield approximately $286. By my count, the settlement is expected to have at least 1.5 million claimants, so google should be ponying up approximately $429,000,000 for a "fair" settlement figure. $7.5 million is nothing.

And to be fair, they're not even expecting 1.5 million claimants, as likely more than half the settlement will be going to the named plaintiffs and (mostly) their attorneys.

That's class actions for you. A worthless waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

[Nside]

And to be fair, they're not even expecting 1.5 million claimants, as likely more than half the settlement will be going to the named plaintiffs and (mostly) their attorneys.

That's class actions for you. A worthless waste of taxpayer dollars.

They listed that 25% will go to attorneys and 200k to expenses. Named plaintiffs likely get the remainder of what doesn't get claimed after the $5 bills get doled out.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Replace google with:
- Apple
- Microsoft
- Experian
- Equifax
- Transunion
- BofA
- Citi
- ... do I really need to go on?

As long as advertising dollars and politicians-for-hire exist, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy.

- Homedepot
- credit cards
- payment processors
- the healthcare complex
- Clearview AI
- facebook

to name a few more.

In short, I just came to the conclusion that yes, given the prevalence of information and avenues that sell/leak/lose it, yeah, your personal information is worth about 5$ net. gross is probably 50 or 60 bucks.

I realized that my post was going to create an inflammatory response. But just a couple of things to mention:

Apple isn't beholden to advertisers and doesn't share your data and instead has created multiple practices to not collect data. Which is in direct and stark contrast to every other agency that is intentionally trying to profit from data.

Every bank and credit card company also has its series of practices and you as individuals have your own choices. BofA, Wells Fargo, and Chase are all hot garbage. If you're using them, then again, that's on you. I wouldn't use any of those three for plenty of other reasons outside of data collection. Their policies are just bad and anti-consumer.

I didn't have a credit card for over 10 years (I did before that time period). Honestly I don't need one now (I made one purchase and I likely will never bother to use it again). And only what I buy is the only data they get. And even that data can be minimized if that is of supreme importance.

The point is there are options. Throwing your arms up in the air and saying it's hopeless is essentially how we will continue to have any semblance of privacy eroded.

I hate to break it to you, but it isn't just google, and your already SOL. this convo really needs to shift from the illusion of privacy we all have, to the reality that privacy doesn't exist and how do we attempt to be responsible with all this data.

That's one perspective. But then you didn't even take what I said into context which directly conflicts with your statements. Which is again: that Google repeatedly has shown that they will over reach. By any metric, they aren't responsible. So you as a user choose to use them at your detriment.

Even if you disagree with me that we can minimize our footprint and the only achieveable goal is regulation, clearly regulation has failed when considering Facebook and Google and they will only get charged paltry sums that can be written off on taxes or simply looked at as doing the cost of business. $8M for Google probably doesn't even create a line item in their expenses, it's just as likely that it gets lumped into attorneys fees for the year.

To reiterate: if you're using Google products then you've signed your own papers.

 

[Aireoth]

I realized that my post was going to create an inflammatory response. But just a couple of things to mention:

Apple isn't beholden to advertisers and doesn't share your data and instead has created multiple practices to not collect data. Which is in direct and stark contrast to every other agency that is intentionally trying to profit from data.

Every bank and credit card company also has its series of practices and you as individuals have your own choices. BofA, Wells Fargo, and Chase are all hot garbage. If you're using them, then again, that's on you. I wouldn't use any of those three for plenty of other reasons outside of data collection. Their policies are just bad and anti-consumer.

I didn't have a credit card for over 10 years (I did before that time period). Honestly I don't need one now (I made one purchase and I likely will never bother to use it again). And only what I buy is the only data they get. And even that data can be minimized if that is of supreme importance.

The point is there are options. Throwing your arms up in the air and saying it's hopeless is essentially how we will continue to have any semblance of privacy eroded.

That's one perspective. But then you didn't even take what I said into context which directly conflicts with your statements. Which is again: that Google repeatedly has shown that they will over reach. By any metric, they aren't responsible. So you as a user choose to use them at your detriment.

Even if you disagree with me that we can minimize our footprint and the only achieveable goal is regulation, clearly regulation has failed when considering Facebook and Google and they will only get charged paltry sums that can be written off on taxes or simply looked at as doing the cost of business. $8M for Google probably doesn't even create a line item in their expenses, it's just as likely that it gets lumped into attorneys fees for the year.

To reiterate: if you're using Google products then you've signed your own papers.

I'll disagree (don't use much google except for google itself).

You miss the point, you are blinded by googles over reach and the fact that few others have been caught.

Your conversation and talking points is exactally where and what companies and guilty politicians want you focused on. The illusion of your privacy, rather than the reality that it does not exist. no matter how small you make your footprint in this digital age all the data points are there, for you, me and everyone else.

then I see the typical answer from those that still cling to privacy like they have it 'throwing your arms up in the air' is not what i am doing, what I am doing is acknoledging the reality that has existed for over a decade (and expanded) and that the real conversation is being had by those in power while you point at google and pretend.

I know you won't change your tune or mind, you'll sit there thinking you are secure, your footprint is 'minimized' and all is good. so take reality, or keep pretending.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I'll disagree (don't use much google except for google itself).

You miss the point, you are blinded by googles over reach and the fact that few others have been caught.

This position isn't particularly useful. While I'll agree that absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense you're still having to take a fairly large conspiratorial leap.

Your conversation and talking points is exactally where and what companies and guilty politicians want you focused on. The illusion of your privacy, rather than the reality that it does not exist. no matter how small you make your footprint in this digital age all the data points are there, for you, me and everyone else.

You also have to acknolwedge that it's possible. As an example how many tribes and people are living in the Amazon? Or in rural African tribes?
So we can see that there is a possibility of zero data collection. All the way to the point we have now and all the way to orwellian conclusions.

If you want to ignore personal responsibility then that's on you.

then I see the typical answer from those that still cling to privacy like they have it 'throwing your arms up in the air' is not what i am doing, what I am doing is acknoledging the reality that has existed for over a decade (and expanded) and that the real conversation is being had by those in power while you point at google and pretend.

I know you won't change your tune or mind, you'll sit there thinking you are secure, your footprint is 'minimized' and all is good. so take reality, or keep pretending.

Like I've stated above. It's clearly possible to not give up data. But to be clear I'm not saying that living that sort of life in 2020 is tenable (that is if you want to have any sort of "regular" existence in the west). But there is clearly a lot of space in-between your version, which lets say is "all" and living in the Amazon Jungle which would be "none". There is a vast span of what kind of data and how much of it.

This isn't a binary situation. And saying it is is just as much of a problem as you claim pointing the finger at Google and Politicians and their conspiracy is.

 

[Aireoth]

This position isn't particularly useful. While I'll agree that absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense you're still having to take a fairly large conspiratorial leap.


You also have to acknolwedge that it's possible. As an example how many tribes and people are living in the Amazon? Or in rural African tribes?
So we can see that there is a possibility of zero data collection. All the way to the point we have now and all the way to orwellian conclusions.

If you want to ignore personal responsibility then that's on you.


Like I've stated above. It's clearly possible to not give up data. But to be clear I'm not saying that living that sort of life in 2020 is tenable (that is if you want to have any sort of "regular" existence in the west). But there is clearly a lot of space in-between your version, which lets say is "all" and living in the Amazon Jungle which would be "none". There is a vast span of what kind of data and how much of it.

This isn't a binary situation. And saying it is is just as much of a problem as you claim pointing the finger at Google and Politicians and their conspiracy is.

Its not binary, but data collection via the internet started a long time ago, has evolved and gotten exponentially worse, and ties in everything.

As for examples, i listed part, and another part was also listed of companies collecting and mass dissemnating data. throw in hacks of home depot, equifax, healthcare, and even the canadian revenue agency. I just don't even know why your arguing other than you think somehow you can be personally responsible enough to be 'private' or 'secure' which is a fallacy.

I get it, you don't want to realize that not only was control reliquished but that you had no say or even idea that it was before too late. so that must be a conspiracy and you still have that precious (illusion) of control we all latch onto (inspite of being proven time and again, naa those where other people impacted, not me).

The conversation needs to shift, that is all, but until it does others will be making the real decisions for you while you sit in pretend land secure.

All of this and you also assume I don't minimize my footprint, I do, because even with everything out there being less noticable than the next person is a defense.

 

[Red Falcon]

Replace google with:
- Apple
- Microsoft
- Experian
- Equifax
- Transunion
- BofA
- Citi
- ... do I really need to go on?

As long as advertising dollars and politicians-for-hire exist, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy.

So many megacorps, so little time.
The dark cyberpunk future has indeed begun, and you are the product!

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Google has shown their willingness to do this again and again. If you’re still using Google products, then you’ve taken your own privacy into your own hands.

let me introduce you to windows 10. spyware posing as an operating system.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

let me introduce you to windows 10. spyware posing as an operating system.

I agree. One of the many reasons I don’t use Windows 10.

 

[DejaWiz]

It's an insult, so I opted out a few days ago when I got the official notice in the Gmail inbox.

If a stand-alone law firm decides to make their own class action or mass action suit for opt-outs and go for an actual meaningful amount per affected person, then I may go that route.

 

[Aurelius]

Sadly par for the course with class action lawsuits. It's usually the lawyers who profit the most -- the settlement amount is rarely large enough that everyone in the affected class can receive a meaningful payout. Even the Nexus 6P settlement only got people a few hundred bucks each.

 

[RanceJustice]

Anyone here who has expressed outrage, wanted corporate interests to be given more than a slap on the wrist, wanted serious privacy laws that would completely upend today's typical business practices, etc...? Remember who you vote for or otherwise support.

There are relatively few who are willing to really take corporations to task and their enemies are funded by those same corporations who want to do anything to prevent threats to their exploitative way of life.

 

[Stryker7314]

Anyone here who has expressed outrage, wanted corporate interests to be given more than a slap on the wrist, wanted serious privacy laws that would completely upend today's typical business practices, etc...? Remember who you vote for or otherwise support.

There are relatively few who are willing to really take corporations to task and their enemies are funded by those same corporations who want to do anything to prevent threats to their exploitative way of life.

Doesn't matter who you vote for in a two party system where they are both corrupt politicians-for-hire parties (other parties exist but have a snowballs chance in hell). Change my mind.

 

[Meeho]

Doesn't matter who you vote for in a two party system where they are both corrupt politicians-for-hire parties (other parties exist but have a snowballs chance in hell). Change my mind.

Corporations love one side more than the other for a reason, and it's not ideological.

 

[Stryker7314]

Corporations love one side more than the other for a reason, and it's not ideological.

Please enlighten us, I can't tell them apart.

 

[kju1]

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-plus-class-action-settlement-how-to-claim-cash-payment-2020-8

A settlement was made in the class action lawsuit brought against the company regarding the private details of their "users" (AKA, livestock) being leaked over their failed Google+ Social Media Service.

If you had an account on the "Facebook Killer" app run by google between 2015 and April 2019, Google is going to pay for their mishandling of your private information.
How much is everyone's privacy worth? $7.5 Million (with an M) total, including attorney fees and expenses.
That's an estimated <$5 per user, but you could get up to $12 if enough people don't even bother filling the form out! (WOOHOO!)

So if you ever think that companies that handle your personal data would be held liable should they massively screw up and leak it, think again. Google is worth about $800 Billion. $7.5M is less than they give to most charities at any given time. This isn't even like paying a parking ticket to them. Google probably paid more than $7.5 Million to their own attorneys just to get out of bed that morning.

Honestly $5-$12 is probably overvalued with how many people just give this shit away to companies without thinking...

 

[RanceJustice]

Doesn't matter who you vote for in a two party system where they are both corrupt politicians-for-hire parties (other parties exist but have a snowballs chance in hell). Change my mind.

One is far worse than the other, including in this regard. Also, those who are truly outstanding on digital privacy legislation, holding corporations to account etc... tend to come from one side of the aisle, almost exclusively. Yes the two party system sucks, but one of those parties is exclusively made up of increasingly radical "doing anything to impede a business from making money is anathema", a smattering of "We can't see the bad terrorists and wrong people unless we break encryption, and if you have nothing to hide your have nothing to fear etc" , and recently a "we'll ruin things for ourselves rather than let the wrong people get any plus let someone shit in our mouthes if it means smelling it will 'trigger' those people we view as hated stereotypes"

The other party is made up of two factions: one is more beholden to corporate money but has some interest in people's lifestyles and prosperity in mind so long as they don't 'rock the boat' of capitalism, the other is a growing faction who are tired of how things have been pushed in market-fellating, "gov't funding for me but none for thee" corporate-favoring decisions increasingly for decades past, demanding real dramatic change because shit. isnt. working. The second faction is growing dramatically and is nearly equally as pissed at the corporate wing of the party as they are at the opposition. Also, the second faction nearly universally supports changes to the electoral system to get money out of politics, modernize or remove stupid systems like the electoral college, fix gerrymandering, and ultimately change to voting system such as ranked choice that will make it possible to break the two-party system dynamic.

With the exception of a handful of local and state 3rd party candidates (There are a couple of Greens that have been pretty great overall in my area, including tech/privacy/corporate malfeasance) who have a real chance of winning and/or a strategic voting objective while residing in a safe area, it really comes down to the two big parties. One of them is totally antithetical to these changes, the other is half-filled with halfass mitigation at best yet has another half that is energized, pissed, and ready for major change in the right direction. Yes the two party system has turned into stagnant corporate owned garbage, but both parties are not equally so.

 

[TheSlySyl]

Excellent. My plan to just let everyone have every bit of my data to the point that its worthless is working!
(I'd say this is sarcasm but I currently have 6 google home devices in my house..)

 

[Aireoth]

Anyone here who has expressed outrage, wanted corporate interests to be given more than a slap on the wrist, wanted serious privacy laws that would completely upend today's typical business practices, etc...? Remember who you vote for or otherwise support.

There are relatively few who are willing to really take corporations to task and their enemies are funded by those same corporations who want to do anything to prevent threats to their exploitative way of life.

Being this niave.

Corporations own both parties, or all parties of consequence in a multi-party system. Left and right is an illusion when it comes to corporatism and profits, one you've been dupped by.

edit: to your other post, as soon as those members of the DNC become of actual consequence they will be bought and beholden to corporate interests. I'd bet they already are and just his behind a veneer of progressivism.

 

[Stryker7314]

One is far worse than the other, including in this regard. Also, those who are truly outstanding on digital privacy legislation, holding corporations to account etc... tend to come from one side of the aisle, almost exclusively. Yes the two party system sucks, but one of those parties is exclusively made up of increasingly radical "doing anything to impede a business from making money is anathema", a smattering of "We can't see the bad terrorists and wrong people unless we break encryption, and if you have nothing to hide your have nothing to fear etc" , and recently a "we'll ruin things for ourselves rather than let the wrong people get any plus let someone shit in our mouthes if it means smelling it will 'trigger' those people we view as hated stereotypes"

The other party is made up of two factions: one is more beholden to corporate money but has some interest in people's lifestyles and prosperity in mind so long as they don't 'rock the boat' of capitalism, the other is a growing faction who are tired of how things have been pushed in market-fellating, "gov't funding for me but none for thee" corporate-favoring decisions increasingly for decades past, demanding real dramatic change because shit. isnt. working. The second faction is growing dramatically and is nearly equally as pissed at the corporate wing of the party as they are at the opposition. Also, the second faction nearly universally supports changes to the electoral system to get money out of politics, modernize or remove stupid systems like the electoral college, fix gerrymandering, and ultimately change to voting system such as ranked choice that will make it possible to break the two-party system dynamic.

With the exception of a handful of local and state 3rd party candidates (There are a couple of Greens that have been pretty great overall in my area, including tech/privacy/corporate malfeasance) who have a real chance of winning and/or a strategic voting objective while residing in a safe area, it really comes down to the two big parties. One of them is totally antithetical to these changes, the other is half-filled with halfass mitigation at best yet has another half that is energized, pissed, and ready for major change in the right direction. Yes the two party system has turned into stagnant corporate owned garbage, but both parties are not equally so.

Appreciate the insight!

This thread kinda gives me hope that there are people out there that aren't buying all the bs that's bursting at the seams in Washington. It's tragic how bad it is. Sad.