Business
Meta Fined Record $1.3 Billion And Ordered To Stop Sending European User Data To US
LONDON, England – The European Union smacked Meta with a record $1.3 billion privacy punishment on Monday and ordered it to stop sending customers’ personal information across the Atlantic by October, the latest salvo in a decade-long case started by concerns about US cyber snooping.
The 1.2 billion euro penalty is the largest since the EU’s rigorous data privacy law was enacted five years ago, exceeding Amazon’s 746 million euro charge for data protection infringement in 2021.
Meta, which had earlier warned that services for its European consumers could be cut off, has vowed to appeal and ask courts to halt the judgment immediately.
According to the business, “there is no immediate disruption to Facebook in Europe.” The decision pertains to user data such as names, email and IP addresses, messages, viewing history, geolocation data, and other information used by Meta and other internet behemoths such as Google for targeted online advertising.
“This decision is flawed, unjustified, and sets a dangerous precedent for the countless other companies transferring data between the EU and the U.S.,” said Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, and chief legal officer Jennifer Newstead, in a statement.
It’s the latest twist in a legal saga that began in 2013 when Austrian lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems filed a complaint about Facebook’s handling of his data in the aftermath of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations about electronic surveillance by US security agencies. This includes the revelation that Facebook gave agencies access to Europeans’ data.
The issue has highlighted the differences between Europe’s stringent approach to data protection and the more loose framework in the United States, which lacks federal privacy legislation. With a succession of legislation requiring them to police their platforms more closely and protect users’ personal information, the EU has been a global leader in limiting Big Tech’s power.
The EU’s top court threw down the Privacy Shield deal, which covered EU-US data transfers, in 2020, saying it didn’t do enough to shield people from the US government’s electronic probing. The judgment on Monday found that legal stock contracts, another instrument for governing data transfers, were also unconstitutional.
Last year, Brussels and Washington agreed on a revised Privacy Shield that Meta might utilize, but the agreement is awaiting a decision from European officials on whether it effectively safeguards data privacy.
EU authorities have reviewed the pact, and the bloc’s lawmakers this month urged for revisions, claiming that the safeguards are insufficient Meta.
The fine was imposed by Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, which serves as Meta’s principal privacy regulator in the EU’s 27-nation bloc, due to the Silicon Valley tech giant’s European headquarters being in Dublin.
The Irish watchdog said it gave Meta five months to stop sending European user data to the US and six months to bring its data operations into compliance “by ceasing the unlawful processing, including storage, in the US” of personal data transferred in violation of the EU’s privacy rules.
In other words, Meta must remove all that data, which may be a greater concern than the punishment, according to Johnny Ryan, a senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, a nonprofit rights organization focused on digital and data issues.
“This order to delete data is causing Meta a lot of grief,” Ryan explained. “It is very difficult to see how it will be able to comply with that order” if the business is required to scrub data for hundreds of millions of European Union users dating back ten years.
If a new transatlantic privacy agreement takes effect before the deadlines, “our services can continue as they do today without any disruption or impact on users,” according to Meta.
Schrems projected that Meta would have “no real chance” of having the verdict overturned. And according to him, a new privacy treaty may not be the last of Meta’s problems because it is likely to be overturned by the EU’s top court.
“Meta intends to rely on the new agreement for transfers in the future, but this is unlikely to be a long-term solution,” Schrems said. “Unless and until U.S. surveillance laws are changed, Meta will most likely have to keep EU data in the EU.”
Schrems suggested a “federated” social network in which European data is kept in Meta’s European data centers “unless users, for example, chat with a U.S. friend.”
In its most recent earnings report, Meta cautioned that if there is no legal basis for data transfers, it will be compelled to stop supplying its products and services in Europe, “which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.”
If the transfers are eventually halted, the social media business may undergo a costly and difficult overhaul of its processes. According to its website, Meta has a fleet of 21 data centers. However, 17 of them are in the United States. Denmark, Ireland, and Sweden are the other three European countries. Another is located in Singapore.
Other social media behemoths are under scrutiny for their data practices. TikTok has attempted to assuage Western concerns about the Chinese-owned short video-sharing app’s potential cybersecurity hazards by announcing a $1.5 billion proposal to store user data in the United States on Oracle servers.
SOURCE – (AP)
Business
Starbucks Takes On The Federal Labor Agency Before The US Supreme Court
After Starbucks dismissed seven employees who attempted to unionize its Tennessee location, a US government agency secured a court order requiring the firm to rehire them. Starbucks now wants the Supreme Court to limit the government’s power in such situations.
The justices will hear Starbucks’ appeal against the National Labor Relations Board, a federal organization that safeguards employees’ ability to organize, on Tuesday. If the court rules with Starbucks, it may make it more difficult for the NLRB to intervene when it claims corporate meddling in unionization efforts.
Starbucks Takes On The Federal Labor Agency Before The US Supreme Court
The hearing comes as tensions between Starbucks and Workers United, the union that organizes its employees, have begun to subside. In February, the two sides announced that they would resume negotiations with the goal of completing contract agreements this year. Starbucks and union representatives were set to meet Wednesday for their first bargaining session in over a year.
Since late 2021, workers at 420 company-owned Starbucks stores in the United States have voted to unionize, but none of those stores has reached a labor deal with Starbucks.
The issue before the Supreme Court began in February 2022, when Starbucks dismissed seven employees who were spearheading a unionization campaign in Memphis, Tennessee. Starbucks claimed the staff broke company rules by reopening the store after it had closed and invited non-employees, including a television news crew, to enter.
The National Labor Relations Board concluded that the firings were an improper interference with workers’ ability to organize. The agency discovered that Starbucks often permitted off-duty employees and non-employees to stay in the business after hours to create drinks or collect things.
The NLRB requested that a federal district court intervene and order Starbucks to rehire the employees while the case proceeded through the agency’s administrative proceedings. A district court judge agreed with the NLRB and ordered a temporary injunction, forcing Starbucks to rehire the employees in August 2022. After the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, Starbucks filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
According to Workers United, five of the seven workers are still employed at the Memphis shop, with the remaining two active in the organizing drive. The Memphis store voted to unionize in June 2022.
Starbucks Takes On The Federal Labor Agency Before The US Supreme Court
Starbucks argued that the Supreme Court should intervene because federal appeals courts disagree on the conditions that the NLRB must achieve when seeking a temporary injunction against a firm. Starbucks claims that temporary injunctions can be a significant burden for businesses, as the NLRB’s administrative process might take years.
Since 1947, the National Labor Relations Act, which controls the agency, has permitted judges to approve temporary injunctions requested by the NLRB if they are deemed “just and proper.” In its examination of what happened at the Starbucks outlet in Memphis, the Sixth Circuit needed the NLRB to prove two things: that it had reasonable cause to suspect unfair labor practices occurred and that a restraining order would be a “just and proper” solution.
Other federal appellate courts, however, have required the NLRB to meet a four-factor criteria for obtaining restraining orders, including demonstrating that it was likely to prevail in the administrative matter and that employees would suffer irreparable injury if an injunction was not issued.
Starbucks has petitioned the Supreme Court to make the four-factor test the standard that all courts must follow when considering NLRB injunction cases.
“This court’s intervention is urgently needed,” Starbucks stated in an October court petition. “National employers like Starbucks must defend themselves against years-long injunctions under materially different tests depending on where alleged unfair labor practices occur or where employers reside.”
Starbucks Takes On The Federal Labor Agency Before The US Supreme Court
According to the NLRB, it already assesses the possibility of success before bringing a case to court, so whether courts employ two or four considerations is mainly irrelevant. The agency states that it rarely seeks temporary injunctions from the courts; in the fiscal year 2023, it received 19,869 allegations of unfair labor practices and allowed the filing of 14 lawsuits seeking temporary injunctions.
“The two-part inquiry undertaken by the Sixth Circuit and other courts … subjects board petitions to meaningful scrutiny, and does not call for courts merely to ‘rubber-stamp’ agency requests,” the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stated in a filing
SOURCE – (AP)
Business
Google Fires More Workers Who Protested Its Deal With Israel
According to a workers’ representative group, Google fired at least 20 more employees in response to protests over the technology it provided to the Israeli government during the Gaza conflict, bringing the total number of fired employees to more than 50.
It’s the most recent indication of internal conflict at the tech giant, which centers on “Project Nimbus,” a $1.2 billion agreement that Google and Amazon signed in 2021 to provide cloud computing and artificial intelligence services to the Israeli government.
Google Fires More Workers Who Protested Its Deal With Israel
Last week, workers staged sit-in protests at Google offices in New York and Sunnyvale, California. The corporation responded by contacting the police, who made arrests.
No Tech For Apartheid, the group coordinating the protests, said the company dismissed 30 staff last week, up from the initial 28 disclosed.
Then, on Tuesday night, Google dismissed “over 20” more employees, “including non-participating bystanders during last week’s protests,” according to Jane Chung, a spokesperson for No Tech For Apartheid, who did not provide a particular figure.
Google Fires More Workers Who Protested Its Deal With Israel
“Google’s aims are clear: the corporation is attempting to quash dissent, silence its workers, and reassert its power over them,” Chung said in a statement. “In its attempts to do so, Google has decided to unceremoniously, and without due process, upend the livelihoods of over 50 of its own workers.”
They stated that it fired the extra workers after gathering information from coworkers who were “physically disrupted” and identifying employees who donned masks and did not carry their staff badges to conceal their identity. It did not specify how many were fired.
The corporation denied the group’s allegations, claiming that “every single one of those whose employment was terminated was personally and definitively involved in disruptive activity inside our buildings.”
Google Fires More Workers Who Protested Its Deal With Israel
The Mountain View, California-based corporation had previously hinted that more individuals could be dismissed, with CEO Sundar Pichai stating in a blog post that employees would be on a tight leash as the company ramped up its efforts to improve its AI technology.
SOURCE – (AP)
Business
Tesla Cuts The Price Of Its “Full Self Driving” System By A Third To $8,000
NEW YORK — Tesla reduced the price of its “Full Self Driving” system — which cannot drive itself and requires drivers to remain attentive and ready to intervene — by nearly a third to $8,000 from $12,000, according to the company website.
Tesla Cuts The Price Of Its “Full Self Driving” System By A Third To $8,000
Tesla CEO and billionaire Elon Musk stated in 2019 that there would be a fleet of robotaxis on the road by 2020, but that promise has yet to be fulfilled, and the system must still be supervised by humans.
The cutbacks, which took effect on Saturday, follow Tesla’s decision to trim $2,000 off the pricing of three of its five models in the United States late Friday. That is the most recent example of the difficulties that the electric vehicle manufacturer is facing.
Tesla Cuts The Price Of Its “Full Self Driving” System By A Third To $8,000
Tesla dropped the costs of its most popular model, the Model Y, a small SUV that is the best-selling electric vehicle in the United States, as well as the Models X and S, which are older and more expensive. Prices for the Model 3 car and Cybertruck remained unchanged.
Tesla Cuts The Price Of Its “Full Self Driving” System By A Third To $8,000
The price cut comes a day after Tesla’s stock fell below $150 a share, wiping out all gains recorded in the previous year. The Austin, Texas-based company’s stock price has fallen almost 40% this year due to declining sales and growing competition. Discounted sticker prices are intended to entice more car purchasers.
SOURCE – (AP)
-
News5 months ago
Death Toll From Flooding In Somalia Climbs To Nearly 100
-
Business5 months ago
Google Will Start Deleting ‘Inactive’ Accounts In December. Here’s What You Need To Know
-
Entertainment5 months ago
Merriam-Webster’s 2023 Word Of The Year Is ‘Authentic’
-
Sports5 months ago
Panthers Fire Frank Reich In His First Season With Team Off To NFL-Worst 1-10 Record
-
Celebrity5 months ago
Elon Musk Visits Destroyed Kibbutz and Meets Netanyahu in Wake of Antisemitic Post
-
Celebrity5 months ago
Shane MacGowan, Lead Singer Of The Pogues And A Laureate Of Booze And Beauty, Dies At Age 65