Had an individual person done this, the law would have been on him quicker than lightning[1]. But when a company does it, it gets off with a trivial fine.

 To be fair, a company wouldn't stalk and kill me, whereas an individual person 'just might'.Don't read too much into this comment...just saying I'm not surprised if the law comes down quick as lightning on an individual person who is doing such creepy stuff, whereas companies can...
 You might want to look at the history of a certain banana dealer before making the statement that a company wouldn't stalk and kill you[1]. A bit of a bizarre story, but don't rule such things out.You are right though, the fine for such behavior was pretty small.
 "To be fair, a company wouldn't stalk and kill me, whereas an individual person 'just might'.""Who's being naive, Kay?"-Michael Corleone, The Godfather
 It's a perfect example of correlation not equating with causality!1) A company is more likely to stalk you than any person. 2) A company is more likely to cause your death than any person.
 That may be true, but I think the conditional probability that a person will kill you, given that they are stalking you, is much higher than the probability that a company will kill you after stalking you. The fact that an individual is stalking you is more significant than the fact that a company is.
 At least individuals have dignity enough to warn you that they are planning to kill you! :pBut inserting conditional probably doesn't change anything:P(A) >= P(A|B)