DiDi in deep doo-doo over 64 billion illegal acts of data collection

The Cyberspace Administration of China has fined ride-sharing company DiDi global ¥8.026 billion ($1.2 billion) for more than 64 billion illegal acts of data collection that it says were carried out maliciously and threatened national security. Yes, we do mean billion. As in a thousand million. The Administration enumerated …

[Anonymous Coward]

The high price of running Uber's playbook in china

Where you become the public lightning rod for doing what the state already does, and MUCH worse. The "rebellious disrupter" myth was toxic enough in the US, why did they think it would fly over there? Even greasing the right palms is only buying time, sooner or later you are just another poker chip. Xi cashed that in to pay down the vig on his states own glaring privacy transgressions.

something something farmers slaughtering farm animals that aren't really important to keep the livestock in line... blah blah, general dystopia.

Big numbers but this is a dancing bear. The people in china have bigger issues, especially if they live in the mountains... or the desert.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The high price of running Uber's playbook in china

something something word soup something blah blah general bollocks

This what passes for an intelligent comment these days?

I know language grows and changes but it is still supposed to help us communicate....

Big numbers but this is a dancing bear.

Thanks for that.

No really, well done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The high price of running Uber's playbook in china

Now admittedly at one point I did check the author to see if it was amanfrommars, but I thought the language wasn't that obtuse, and the points relevant.

It certainly contributed more to the conversation than your comment, or this one of mine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Nobody is that bad

Except Chinese government, Vietnamese government, USA government, Google, Apple, Yahoo, Amazon, Meta, Uber, Samsung, Walmart, and pretty much every web site not covered by the GDPR.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Nobody is that bad

"pretty much every web site not covered by the GDPR"

And plenty that are.

Without going into China's handling of th internet in other ways, this fine is something Western regulators could learn from.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Nobody is that bad

I take it the downvote means that someone thinks Western regulators shouldn't be issuing fines much nearer their limits than they are. Perhaps we could be told the reasoning for that view.

[Pascal Monett]

"It has apologised for its actions, accepted the fine, [..]"

A far cry from any Western conglomerate, who (especially in the USA) never admit to any wrongdoing.

DiDi has "accepted" the fine ? No kidding ! Its CEO doesn't want to find out the insides of a Chinese jail.

There are some aspects of Chinese justice that I would dearly like to see imported around here.

[Gary Stewart]

Re: "It has apologised for its actions, accepted the fine, [..]"

Not sure why this got a down vote as it seems to be completely factual to me. Two of the things I deeply resent in the US justice system is "companies/people(?)" constantly getting settlements where they get fined with explit we didn't do it written in them and the string puller CEOs never being held responsible for their actions. And here's an up vote on me.

[Fazal Majid]

Re: "It has apologised for its actions, accepted the fine, [..]"

The best example being eBay's campaign of terror against David and Ina Steiner. The CEO at the time escaped unscathed, only his flunkies were jailed.

[abstract]

Re: "It has apologised for its actions, accepted the fine, [..]"

That's democracy: you vote once in a while, they have the power the rest of the time.

[abstract]

Re: "It has apologised for its actions, accepted the fine, [..]"

It is not a wrongdoing it is a feature.

[Doctor Syntax]

DiDi, don't do dat.

[TimMaher]

Surely...

Dido don’t do data?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Surely...

Nice.

[Drew Scriver]

Maybe DiDi didn't share the information with the Chinese government?

Color me skeptical, but given the propensity of the Chinese government to spy on its own citizens I wonder if the fine isn't a result of DiDi's refusal to share the data it collected with the government.

Granted, this is conjecture, but not without cause.

[Robert Carnegie]

Re: Maybe DiDi didn't share the information with the Chinese government?

I wonder if this is real at all or is merely the Chinese government's version of a "windfall tax", disguised as prosecution. Someone else has money, so we're going to take it.