[HN Gopher] Shein owner fined $1.9M for failing to notify 39M us...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Shein owner fined $1.9M for failing to notify 39M users of data
       breach
        
       Author : pseudolus
       Score  : 62 points
       Date   : 2022-10-14 15:53 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
        
       | colinmhayes wrote:
       | How does this even get enforced? Does Shein have any assets in
       | the US? Seems like it's a totally chinese/singapore based company
       | that just mails stuff to other countries.
        
       | breitling wrote:
       | Shein is also accused of using forced labor [0] and there have
       | been many instances of workers leaving notes in clothing pleading
       | for help [1]
       | 
       | [0]https://impakter.com/how-fast-fashion-giant-reacted-to-
       | help-...
       | 
       | [1]https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/shien-
       | tikt...
        
         | kyleamazza wrote:
         | The second article linked actually debunks the claim that
         | workers have been leaving notes (but does note Shein's labor
         | violations)
        
       | richbell wrote:
       | ~$0.05 per person affected is a pretty compelling cost avoidance
       | versus having to pay for security and compliance personnel, not
       | to mention potential reputational damages and lost revenue from
       | actually following the rules and telling people you were hacked.
        
         | hbrn wrote:
         | If you read past the headline, it's not $0.05, it's $5.07. A
         | 100 times higher. Maybe even more, if you only count New
         | Yorkers that were not notified about the breach (255,294).
         | 
         | And it sounds like they weren't fined for the breach. They were
         | fined for negligence _after_ the breach.
        
         | notch656a wrote:
         | Corporate fines make a lot more sense once you understand
         | they're not there to stop the behavior, they're there to make
         | sure the shakedown ensures the state gets their cut. They don't
         | actually want to destroy the company, they want their piece of
         | the action by proxy.
        
           | hbrn wrote:
           | That sounds like a conspiracy theory, how would that work in
           | practice, where are the incentives? Does attorney general get
           | a cut of the fine?
        
             | [deleted]
        
             | johncessna wrote:
             | The existence of an agency designed just to root out this
             | behavior provides a lot of incentive. The folks who create
             | the agency get say they're doing something about the
             | problem and look good. The folks in the agency get jobs and
             | all that entails.
        
               | hbrn wrote:
               | Doctors want people to be sick, police wants people to
               | commit crimes, military wants wars. This is a dangerous
               | mindset.
               | 
               | Did they improve their practices after the breach? Sounds
               | like they did:
               | 
               | "Zoetop became independently certified as PCI DSS
               | compliant in April 2019 and has remained so since."
               | 
               | Now I know that PCI DSS is a complete shit, but that's
               | the only tool they have. I'm all for criticizing the
               | state, but sounds like in this case they did their job
               | just fine.
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | ceejayoz wrote:
           | > They don't actually want to destroy the company...
           | 
           | Sure, just like a speeding ticket doesn't get punished with
           | the death penalty. Of _course_ that 's not the goal of the
           | fines. Why would you expect it to be?
        
             | LeifCarrotson wrote:
             | The fines should be large enough to serve as a deterrent;
             | as a warning to other companies that if they harm the
             | public they'll be punished.
             | 
             | Fines which are a minor nuisance, a small cost of doing
             | business, don't accomplish those goals.
        
               | Ekaros wrote:
               | They should wipe years of profits and also pierce the
               | corporate veil. Go after the stock holders and their
               | property if needed. They deserve it.
        
             | paxys wrote:
             | My college campus had a huge parking problem. One time I
             | got a ride from a classmate, and he rolled up and parked in
             | a clear no parking zone. When I pointed it out, he said "oh
             | I'll just pay the $50 (or whatever) ticket. I always do it
             | when I'm running late for class."
             | 
             | Parking enforcement was happy since they made a bit of
             | money. The student was happy because he got to park in a
             | prime spot for a fee that was insignificant for him.
             | However, if the goal was to stop people from parking in
             | certain areas, the policy failed miserably.
             | 
             | Corporate fines work the same way. If they make $10 from an
             | illegal action and are fined $1 for it, it isn't a
             | deterrence, just a good investment opportunity.
        
               | speeder wrote:
               | When I was a little kid, I had to go the airport with
               | some distant relatives. One of them parked right next to
               | a "forbidden parking" sign.
               | 
               | So I went up to the owner of the car, and asked, she then
               | cheerfully replied:
               | 
               | "Oh, the parking lot charges 40, the fine is 5, I prefer
               | to pay the fine since it is cheaper!"
        
               | NullPrefix wrote:
               | Always a chance the car will be towed
        
               | ceejayoz wrote:
               | This is a solvable problem. Finland's approach is good
               | here; fines are income-based (https://www.theatlantic.com
               | /business/archive/2015/03/finland...). The GDPR similarly
               | imposes a penalty in terms of "percent of annual global
               | revenue".
               | 
               | The point: the goal isn't a corporate _death penalty_ in
               | these sorts of cases.
        
               | darkarmani wrote:
               | In Finland's case, if you are filthy wealthy, you should
               | never drive yourself. Hire the cheapest person that is a
               | good driver and pay their tickets for them.
        
               | [deleted]
        
             | notch656a wrote:
             | Speeding ticket is actually the perfect analogy of this
             | kind of behavior. Thank you.
        
       | kman82 wrote:
       | Why are they fining Shein's owner and not Shein themself?
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | Because it's not just Shein, it's two of the parent company's
         | subsidiaries.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-14 23:02 UTC)