5 ms·

> This is an obtuse, bordering on malicious misreading of the post. They're not unwilling to implement the necessary features. They're unwilling to shoulder the

by Lazare 9y ago

> This is an obtuse, bordering on malicious misreading of the post. They're not unwilling to implement the necessary features. They're unwilling to shoulder the risk. I think your reading of the comment you're replying to is itself obtuse, bordering on malicious. They clearly understood that the core issue with GDPR for the OP is risk, and suggested a reasonable solution to address it: > The solution is to create a company so that the company can shoulder most of the risk Further: > It's extremely straightforward to not share data with a "fly-by-night" website like this. Not if you're using the site. The €20 million fine OP is worried about is only triggered in case of an actual leak of personal data. If you're seriously worried that you might end up leaking personal data, maybe you shouldn't be storing it to start with?

dleslie 9y ago
> The €20 million fine OP is worried about is only triggered in case of an actual leak of personal data. The author is clear that they are concerned with having to defend themselves in court. The fine is the bait that draws the true threat.
- Lazare 9y ago
  That's not remotely how this works. The fines are imposed by the government; in the UK that means the ICO. They cannot be levied as the result of a lawsuit brought by private parties. The ICO also has discretion when levying fines, and they've stressed repeatedly they will not be reaching for maximum penalties. GDPR offers the prospect of big fines if you screw up badly enough. It also is likely to lead to a lot of lawsuits. But there are totally separate issues, and cannot be conflated as you are doing. OP might get sued. And he might get fined for €20 million (although realistically...no, of course not). But he won't get sued for €20 million. > The fine is the bait that draws the true threat. That's simply incorrect. You're looking at a normal civil case, with normal damages.
  - dleslie 9y ago
    So they have a risk of having to defend themselves in front of a regulator instead of in civil court. The risk remains.
    - Lazare 9y ago
      They're...completely different risks? We started out talking about the risk of an opportunistic civil suit filed by a law firm working on a contingency basis seeking a €2m payout; now that we've established that isn't possible, we're talking about the risk of an actual fine for breaking an actual law levied by an actual regulator (who is on record as saying that large fines would be a weapon of last resort in the most extreme cases). So other than the risk being much lower, the likely penalties much lower, the chance of an unfair outcome being much lower, and the incentives and mechanisms being completely different... ...sure, the risk remains.

by Lazare 9y ago

dleslie 9y ago

> The €20 million fine OP is worried about is only triggered in case of an actual leak of personal data. The author is clear that they are concerned with having to defend themselves in court. The fine is the bait that draws the true threat.

Lazare 9y ago
That's not remotely how this works. The fines are imposed by the government; in the UK that means the ICO. They cannot be levied as the result of a lawsuit brought by private parties. The ICO also has discretion when levying fines, and they've stressed repeatedly they will not be reaching for maximum penalties. GDPR offers the prospect of big fines if you screw up badly enough. It also is likely to lead to a lot of lawsuits. But there are totally separate issues, and cannot be conflated as you are doing. OP might get sued. And he might get fined for €20 million (although realistically...no, of course not). But he won't get sued for €20 million. > The fine is the bait that draws the true threat. That's simply incorrect. You're looking at a normal civil case, with normal damages.
- dleslie 9y ago
  So they have a risk of having to defend themselves in front of a regulator instead of in civil court. The risk remains.
  - Lazare 9y ago
    They're...completely different risks? We started out talking about the risk of an opportunistic civil suit filed by a law firm working on a contingency basis seeking a €2m payout; now that we've established that isn't possible, we're talking about the risk of an actual fine for breaking an actual law levied by an actual regulator (who is on record as saying that large fines would be a weapon of last resort in the most extreme cases). So other than the risk being much lower, the likely penalties much lower, the chance of an unfair outcome being much lower, and the incentives and mechanisms being completely different... ...sure, the risk remains.