8 ms·

It's scaremongering to assume that a country would enforce the letter of the law? I am not a lawyer, how can I tell when a judge will or will not enforce a ridi

by firic 8y ago

It's scaremongering to assume that a country would enforce the letter of the law? I am not a lawyer, how can I tell when a judge will or will not enforce a ridiculous law? After all, England almost jailed something for training their dog to give the Hitler salute or for posting something mean on Facebook.

kristianc 8y ago
> After all, England almost jailed something for training their dog to give the Hitler salute or for posting something mean on Facebook. reply. He wasn't 'almost jailed' - he was fined £800. And the video involved him saying 'Gas the Jews' over and over again to his dog, to which the dog reacted.
- firic 8y ago
  I don't know how close he was to being jailed, but Washington Post (MSM) wrote "Now it will probably land Meechan in prison." [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/03/21/for-weeks-he-trained-a-dog-to-do-a-nazi-salute-the-man-was-just-convicted-of-a-hate-crime/?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-intersect/wp...
  - kristianc 8y ago
    Typically the law in this country has been to impose relatively small fines for malicious communications, and even these are sometimes dropped on appeal, as with the Twitter Joke Trial. The WaPo has it wrong in this instance - Britain isn't Thailand. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial?wprov=sfl...
- stef25 8y ago
  The real crime here that it wasn't funny at all. But imposing fines for telling bad jokes and spending tens of thousands of GBP of tax payers money is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
oldcynic 8y ago
Is it scaremongering to assume the maximum fine? Of course - years of legal precedent for current DPA clearly demonstrates this. If the track record showed hundreds of small business people rendered destitute thanks to half million fines it wouldn't be, but it doesn't. It's a maximum not a fixed penalty as one would typically get for a parking offence. If they're not fining anyone £500k why are they going to suddenly fine everyone £17m? Even TalkTalk were only fined £400k for the most ridiculous incompetence leading to 4 breaches in 18 months and failing SQL injection 101. They make profit in the tens of millions yet still didn't hit the maximum (They should have in my opinion). I think at the time that was the largest penalty yet issued. Same goes for other data protection bodies across the EU - there will be few instances of maximum penalty under current data protection. I'm sure some countries have never imposed the current maximum. nb It's not a ridiculous law - I'm fully in favour of it, as are many others over here.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  >> nb It's not a ridiculous law - I'm fully in favour of it, as are many others over here. That's the most interesting thing about the GDPR. While some developers are picking up their ball and huffing off home, others are actually 100% behind the regulation. It says something when tech-savvy people agree to sacrifice time and effort and probably profits to protect their users from their own software.
  - SahAssar 8y ago
    Probably in part because it's exactly those developers that see how easy it is to leak data to third parties that won't respect it at all and will track the everliving shit out of it. I'm fully behind the GDPR. It might not be perfect, but I've read the law and it's surprisingly straightforward and sane.
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
      > I'm fully behind the GDPR. It might not be perfect, but I've read the law and it's surprisingly straightforward and sane. Why is it sane to assume data I've sent to a service is my data to control?
tscs37 8y ago
The GDPR gives authorities various ways to deal with corporations that are breaking the regulations. When a corporation is compliant and only has minor infractions, they will (most likely) write a sternly worded letter. But if you're constantly and repeatedly or willfully ignoring or breaking the regulation they definitely won't leave it at a simply tap on the fingers. Plus, I don't think any regulatory body is looking for bankrupting a corporation. They will obviously size the fine according to how much the corporation has in turnover or profit.
- downandout 8y ago
  So we are just supposed to hope that they will be nice to us when inevitable violations occur under one of the 28 unique interpretations that this law will be subject to?
  - tscs37 8y ago
    I don't think I've heard of many EU regulatory bodies that will immediately go for the maximum punishment the moment anyone does a minor infraction. First you get a letter, then a sternly worded letter, then a tap on the finger, a hard tap on the fingers and if you still refuse to learn the lesson then they break your knees. If you have minor infractions caused accidentally and you cooperate I have doubts that any regulatory body for the GDPR will go beyond sending a simple letter asking you to fix a problem.
    - downandout 8y ago
      That’s not what the law says they have to do. All reasonable businesses have to assume the worst case, not the best case. These governments have a built-in financial incentive to not be lenient in any way, shape, or form.
      - tscs37 8y ago
        That's the US, yes. EU regulatory bodies are generally rather lenient when you attempt to follow the regulation. And unlike you say the law does say the regulatory body for the GDPR has to consider the business needs of smaller businesses and adjust their fines accordingly if they even hand them out. There is a good flowchart in this thread too, I recommend to study it.
kahnpro 8y ago
This is usually how laws work. They specify minimum and maximum punishments for various offenses. What part of this is a problem for you?
Wildgoose 8y ago
Scotland actually, (and Scottish Law, not English). (And for that matter it was his girlfriend's dog). But yes, I agree with you - you have no control over the Court's decision if found guilty.

by firic 8y ago

kristianc 8y ago

> After all, England almost jailed something for training their dog to give the Hitler salute or for posting something mean on Facebook. reply. He wasn't 'almost jailed' - he was fined £800. And the video involved him saying 'Gas the Jews' over and over again to his dog, to which the dog reacted.

firic 8y ago
I don't know how close he was to being jailed, but Washington Post (MSM) wrote "Now it will probably land Meechan in prison." [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/03/21/for-weeks-he-trained-a-dog-to-do-a-nazi-salute-the-man-was-just-convicted-of-a-hate-crime/?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-intersect/wp...
- kristianc 8y ago
  Typically the law in this country has been to impose relatively small fines for malicious communications, and even these are sometimes dropped on appeal, as with the Twitter Joke Trial. The WaPo has it wrong in this instance - Britain isn't Thailand. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial?wprov=sfl...
stef25 8y ago
The real crime here that it wasn't funny at all. But imposing fines for telling bad jokes and spending tens of thousands of GBP of tax payers money is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

oldcynic 8y ago

Is it scaremongering to assume the maximum fine? Of course - years of legal precedent for current DPA clearly demonstrates this. If the track record showed hundreds of small business people rendered destitute thanks to half million fines it wouldn't be, but it doesn't. It's a maximum not a fixed penalty as one would typically get for a parking offence. If they're not fining anyone £500k why are they going to suddenly fine everyone £17m? Even TalkTalk were only fined £400k for the most ridiculous incompetence leading to 4 breaches in 18 months and failing SQL injection 101. They make profit in the tens of millions yet still didn't hit the maximum (They should have in my opinion). I think at the time that was the largest penalty yet issued. Same goes for other data protection bodies across the EU - there will be few instances of maximum penalty under current data protection. I'm sure some countries have never imposed the current maximum. nb It's not a ridiculous law - I'm fully in favour of it, as are many others over here.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> nb It's not a ridiculous law - I'm fully in favour of it, as are many others over here. That's the most interesting thing about the GDPR. While some developers are picking up their ball and huffing off home, others are actually 100% behind the regulation. It says something when tech-savvy people agree to sacrifice time and effort and probably profits to protect their users from their own software.
- SahAssar 8y ago
  Probably in part because it's exactly those developers that see how easy it is to leak data to third parties that won't respect it at all and will track the everliving shit out of it. I'm fully behind the GDPR. It might not be perfect, but I've read the law and it's surprisingly straightforward and sane.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    > I'm fully behind the GDPR. It might not be perfect, but I've read the law and it's surprisingly straightforward and sane. Why is it sane to assume data I've sent to a service is my data to control?

tscs37 8y ago

The GDPR gives authorities various ways to deal with corporations that are breaking the regulations. When a corporation is compliant and only has minor infractions, they will (most likely) write a sternly worded letter. But if you're constantly and repeatedly or willfully ignoring or breaking the regulation they definitely won't leave it at a simply tap on the fingers. Plus, I don't think any regulatory body is looking for bankrupting a corporation. They will obviously size the fine according to how much the corporation has in turnover or profit.

downandout 8y ago
So we are just supposed to hope that they will be nice to us when inevitable violations occur under one of the 28 unique interpretations that this law will be subject to?
- tscs37 8y ago
  I don't think I've heard of many EU regulatory bodies that will immediately go for the maximum punishment the moment anyone does a minor infraction. First you get a letter, then a sternly worded letter, then a tap on the finger, a hard tap on the fingers and if you still refuse to learn the lesson then they break your knees. If you have minor infractions caused accidentally and you cooperate I have doubts that any regulatory body for the GDPR will go beyond sending a simple letter asking you to fix a problem.
  - downandout 8y ago
    That’s not what the law says they have to do. All reasonable businesses have to assume the worst case, not the best case. These governments have a built-in financial incentive to not be lenient in any way, shape, or form.
    - tscs37 8y ago
      That's the US, yes. EU regulatory bodies are generally rather lenient when you attempt to follow the regulation. And unlike you say the law does say the regulatory body for the GDPR has to consider the business needs of smaller businesses and adjust their fines accordingly if they even hand them out. There is a good flowchart in this thread too, I recommend to study it.

kahnpro 8y ago

This is usually how laws work. They specify minimum and maximum punishments for various offenses. What part of this is a problem for you?

Wildgoose 8y ago

Scotland actually, (and Scottish Law, not English). (And for that matter it was his girlfriend's dog). But yes, I agree with you - you have no control over the Court's decision if found guilty.