China Fines DiDi $1.2 Billion Over 64 Billion Illegal Acts of Data Collection (theregister.com) 69
The Cyberspace Administration of China has fined ride-sharing company DiDi global $1.2 billion for more than 64 billion illegal acts of data collection that it says were carried out maliciously and threatened national security. The Register reports: The Administration enumerated DiDi's indiscretions as follows:
- 53.976 billion pieces of information indicating travellers' intentions were analyzed without informing passengers;
- 8.323 billion pieces of information were accessed from users' clipboards and lists of apps;
- 1.538 billion pieces of information about the cities in which users live were analyzed without permission;
- 304 million pieces of information describing users' place of work;
- 167 million user locations were gathered when users evaluated the DiDi app while it ran in the background;
- 153 million pieces of information revealing the drivers' home and business location;
- 107 million pieces of passenger facial recognition information;
- 57.8 million pieces of driver's ID number information in plain text;
- 53.5092 million pieces of age information;
- 16.3356 million pieces of occupation information;
- 11.96 million screenshots were harvested from users' smartphones;
- 1.3829 million pieces of family relationship information;
- 142,900 items describing drivers' education.
The Administration (CAC) also found DiDi asked for irrelevant permissions on users' smartphones and did not give an accurate or clear explanation for processing 19 types of personal information. The fine levied on DiDi is not a run of the mill penalty. The Administration's Q&A about the incident points out that the fine is a special administrative penalty because DiDi flouted China's Network Security Law, Data Security Law, and Personal Information Protection Law -- and did so for seven years in some cases. [...] DiDi appears to have got the message. It has apologized for its actions, accepted the fine, and vowed to ensure it does not repeat its mistakes.
- 53.976 billion pieces of information indicating travellers' intentions were analyzed without informing passengers;
- 8.323 billion pieces of information were accessed from users' clipboards and lists of apps;
- 1.538 billion pieces of information about the cities in which users live were analyzed without permission;
- 304 million pieces of information describing users' place of work;
- 167 million user locations were gathered when users evaluated the DiDi app while it ran in the background;
- 153 million pieces of information revealing the drivers' home and business location;
- 107 million pieces of passenger facial recognition information;
- 57.8 million pieces of driver's ID number information in plain text;
- 53.5092 million pieces of age information;
- 16.3356 million pieces of occupation information;
- 11.96 million screenshots were harvested from users' smartphones;
- 1.3829 million pieces of family relationship information;
- 142,900 items describing drivers' education.
The Administration (CAC) also found DiDi asked for irrelevant permissions on users' smartphones and did not give an accurate or clear explanation for processing 19 types of personal information. The fine levied on DiDi is not a run of the mill penalty. The Administration's Q&A about the incident points out that the fine is a special administrative penalty because DiDi flouted China's Network Security Law, Data Security Law, and Personal Information Protection Law -- and did so for seven years in some cases. [...] DiDi appears to have got the message. It has apologized for its actions, accepted the fine, and vowed to ensure it does not repeat its mistakes.
No no (Score:2)
Re:No no (Score:5, Funny)
Still funny that China apparently has better privacy laws than the US :)
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to have modelled them on the European GDPR in many respects. Ownership of your own data, permission required to use it for things not essential to the service. Big fines for non compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing will be to see if they get fined 4% per each instance of "more than 64 billion illegal acts of data collection".
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing will be to see if they get fined 4% per each instance of "more than 64 billion illegal acts of data collection".
But that would put them in the negative and that's *child voice and stomping feet* NOT FAIR!!! /h
Re: (Score:2)
Still funny that China apparently has better privacy laws than the US :)
Or at least better enforcement. The US has many great laws (not necessarily privacy-related) that are never enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
More likely, someone important got caught up in the data collection.
Or maybe the company got caught collecting data and NOT passing the interesting bits along to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
What's funny is that people actually believe that.
Both governments suck up all your data, the only difference is in China the government won't pay for any of it. If a corporation won't share with the government, they get punished... for that
China doesn't have laws. (Score:3)
There's no privacy in China: Neither as a law, nor a social value. There's privacy in Western countries because it's a social
Re: (Score:2)
What's ironic is the chinese "Mandate of Heaven" philosophy that justifies a successful revolution.
Apparently pissing off your own citizens badly enough is a good reason to overthrow your own government.
The communist party should pay heed to what the US did back in 1776 unless they want to get the same treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think some Westerner from the outside, such as yourself, is seeing something that the people in the CCP doesn't?
You do realize that all of the CCP's actions ARE about preventing being overthrown right? And not just trampling on rights, but also making sure the economy is growing at sustainable rates and with sustainable industries. It amazes me that people don'
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
around 1999 or so, perhaps a bit earlier or later, there was a Chinese writer suppressed by the regime.
He got a book price. No idea (don't remember) if it was a German one, or even a Nobel Prize.
So when there was a big exhibition in Germany about books from al over the world, either the Chinese ambassador or even a minister (foreign affairs?)
He got interviews regarding how they treat that author and if that is not wrong. The Chinese answered something like this:
The government has the following duties a
Re: (Score:2)
China has its ruling council.
"China" has nothing of the sort. The Communist Party of China has it, and China lives under military occupation by that group.
It's not a matter of degree either. They're not hypocrites exploiting loopholes, they're openly and violently nihilistic, and oppose the very premise of law, since anything that would limit their own power over others cannot be tolerated.
What don't you understand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only your chosen way is valid?
How very Authoritarian of you...
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese people (aka CHINA) have never given their consent to be ruled by this minority of violent maniacs, nor have they ever been asked. Nor is anyone tolerated who openly holds that their consent is required, but instead they're beaten to their knees.
So here's what I say to you: If you think obedience is virtue, then fall to YOUR knees in front of people who serve values greater than yours, and work that weak, boot-licking little soul of yours to try and be worthy of greater peo
Re: (Score:2)
It is a catch-22.
You cannot define for someone else what is or is not free/good, without impinging upon their freedom.
You sound like a first year college student. Everything is so clear to you. You understand nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't say "You cannot define for someone else..." in defense of violent oppression of the majority by an unelected militant group.
Re: (Score:2)
in defense of violent oppression of the majority by an unelected militant group.
I would suggest to read up how the Chinese system works.
Of course they are elected!
The election is just rigged in a different way than it is in USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is more democratic than China, by far, since candidates are at least proposed openly before the religious dictatorship rules on their acceptability to the state.
As for your laughable w
Re: (Score:1)
And you are stupid idiot.
I suggest to learn how "elections" in a "one party system" work.
Wow, I really can not stand idiots who are as stupid as you.
Brainwash my ass, do you even have a brain?
our elections are run transparently, and are also run by 50 different states
They are not, otherwise both Bushes had not won.
You are so damn stupid it is hillarious, do you think - we outside of the US - do not watch what is going on there?
Re: (Score:2)
You only know about issues with our system because we fucking debate it constantly, willing and able to improve it. And because there are 50 different methods and models that compete for credibility. Whereas the world knows about China's perfectly undemocratic situation mainly because of peop
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you imagine that's a relevant comparison to an absolutist state with no rights or laws?
Re: (Score:2)
There's privacy in Western countries because it's a social value
That's laughable.
The EU, maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy is a deeply-rooted social value, and a law in most (if not all) parts of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow,
another China hater (with no clue).
Laws in China are passed the same way as in any western country.
There is a huge difference between "party directives" and laws.
You could read that up, if you wanted, but no: you prefer to hate a country that simply would prefer to have nothing to do with yours, except: trade.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws in China are passed the same way as in any western country.
Except for the part where nobody is elected, everything is decided in advance by the Politburo, openly speaking against anything is dangerous even to insiders, no "law" they pass is binding on themselves, and there is no independent authority capable of blocking anything they do.
Other than that, yeah, totally like a real government. LOL, dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Again: I suggest to read a bit up about that.
You are an idiot. Good luck with your attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You did not debunk anything.
You are just ranting.
Laws in China wok like all over the world, exactly the same. They apply for mere mundane citizens and everyone with power is above the law. Just exactly like Russia and USA.
You want to claim they have no law, and for every damn ting some boss comes down from his throne and decides at will. SorrY: wrong.
And: you are a liar. You do not read about it since decades: otherwise you would know this. And yu would know the damn US of arrogance is no iota better.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just exactly like...USA"
You lying little turd. Free people can do the following, and people living under CCP occupation can't:
1) Vote in elections.
2) Run for election.
3) Win elections by running against the party in power.
4) Sue the government.
5) Win lawsuits against the government.
6) Publicly criticize anybody or anything we damn please, on any topic, for any reason.
7) Travel without permission.
8) Live in whatever city or region we please without state permission.
9) Change the law directly by ballot initiati
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry,
all your points make no sense. If one is lying it is you.
Germany is full with Chinese who traveled here without a permit.
Permits are no longer needed since roughly 1990.
Also: we talked about laws, and not special permits.
To make it clear for you:
1) Vote in elections.
No they cant. Voting is on work days. So far away from their home that they can not make it in time. Voting boothes are so scarce that people stand in rows for hours to vor.
for funk sake: how stupid are you that you think we European know
Re: (Score:2)
No they cant. Voting is on work days.
Strange how >150 million people voted in the last national election, and how employers are legally required to let them vote. Unlike the "never" that elections happen in China, and the approximately zero people who dare to complain about it internally because they're not suicidal.
Or why did people suddenly claim Obama was not a born american?
That's only a requirement for a single office. About 90% of the people a
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that your stupid arguments are wrong.
So only 150 million could vote? Wow - and you think there is nothing wrong with that?
You know nothing about China except the stupid propaganda from 30 years ago.
And the worst thing about you stupid idiot is: you think I'm "pro China" just fir pointing out your idiotic misconceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I found most interesting is that the authorities let all that build up with no action before.
If they let it happen on their watch and delayed enforcement for strategic reasons then they're complicit.
I find the timing to be suspicious and I find myself asking myself who they pissed off to unleash the proverbial kraken.
Re: (Score:2)
Didi was told (informally I think) not to list in the US. Maybe China wanted it to list in China or HK or something.
Didi pushed ahead and got listed in a US stock exchange.
Days later there was an announcement they were under investigation and now the penalty. This pretty much takes a big chunck of the money that Didi got when it listed.
Ever noticed how the big guys in China do not appeal or anything when they are being made an example of? Alibaba, Tencent, and now Didi. And they all seem to thank the govern
Re: (Score:2)
There's literally nothing anywhere that compels a law to be enforced.
Even in the West, you only take things to court if you are certain of a victory. Even government agencies don't prosecute every single breach of the law, because they don't have the resources. Otherwise they should be suing the hell out of Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google, Musk, etc all the time because they're bound to be breaking laws every single day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Out of necessity, actually. Because the government requires control of everything. People and companies must step in line and not get big enough to actually be a threat to that control.
If companies got away with harvesting user information in China like they do in the US, then those companies will start having outsized influence over everything. Just look at all the Government vs Big Tech battles going on right now in the US and Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing you are an American because that's a very American take on it.
The EU does basically the same thing. Strict limits on how companies can collect and process data, big fines for abuses.
The main difference is that it's not about the EU controlling big tech, it's about maintaining a balance between individuals and big tech. Big tech has big money and big lawyers, so strong consumer protections are necessary.
The CCP is evil, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that they occasionally act in the
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem I have with a social credit system is vulnerability to "ballot box stuffing" or hackers sabotaging someone's reputation by fraudulent means.
Though, to be honest we have the same problem with good old fashioned meatware based reputations that propagate on gossip.
I will say that slandering someone is one of the most dishonorable things you can do, doubly so if you happen to be in a position of trust or authority.
If you're going to badmouth somebody, you damn well better be telling th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still funny that China apparently has better privacy laws than the US :)
The odds are almost 100% that they don't. There are lots of possible explanations for this.
1) It's a variation on "security theater" to dupe people like you into believing exactly what you said.
2) Didi's CEO pissed off the CCP and this is really a way to beat the guy down and make him toe the line in the future.
3) Didi did collect the data without authorization and failed to share it with the CCP in the prescribed manner.
4) The CCP is actually worried that Didi will get hacked by western forces
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the government is allowed to collect that information
Took the words right off of my keyboard. I was fixing to post the same thing. ;)
"apologized for its actions, accepted the fine" (Score:2)
Of course, that's the only possible outcome in Communist China.
Otherwise, off their senior executives go to Xinjiang labor camps, assembling Iphones for the rest of their lives.
Seems like a good deal (Score:2)
That's $0.02/incident.
I bet it was worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
average Chinese person's annual salary is less than $0.02 while working for Foxconn
What kind of crack did you smoke when you wrote this? I know labor is cheap in China but it's not that cheap. They average 22yr-old college grad makes $1K/month.
OK CCP... (Score:2)
This puts the USDOJ and SCOTUS to shame (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably because you can't prosecute alien citizens on alien soil, it's basic jurisdiction 101.
At least in theory, and the fact that I even have to qualify that is sad.
That said, we're certainly within our rights to impose trade sanctions against Chinese companies or even china as a whole, and it is a federal offense for a US person (corporate or otherwise) to disobey them.
Re: (Score:2)
And in earlier news... (Score:2)