3 ms·

According to the letter of the law - the only thing that matters - this is exactly what could happen and would be perfectly legal. Are you arguing that fining

According to the letter of the law - the only thing that matters - this is exactly what could happen and would be perfectly legal. Are you arguing that fining her would be illegal under GDPR if she failed to disclose it? You’re wrong if you are.

laumars 9y ago
I'm saying there is no precidence in history of any of the EU members imposing a maximum fine against a child for their personal project. You're pulling out the scariest parts of the GDPR and assuming everyone is going to get bettered with it regardless of: * whether they've already been warned or not * their site's size or income * business size or income * nor even the severity of the transgression Thankfully our universe and reality doesn't operate in your worst case fear-mongering. And as I've already stated, you can look back at the history of EU legislation to see evidence to that effect. Posting absurd and unfounded arguments like your previous example really doesn't help the situation one bit.
- downandout 9y ago
  But it would be legal under the GDPR, correct? That’s the problem with this whole argument. Nobody wants to have to depend on the good graces of the EU to “only” fine them “small” amounts (maybe $2 million instead of $10 million, considering her age and all). This law can be used essentially as an EU imposed tax on the entire Internet, and there’s no reason why it wouldn’t be used that way. By the way, there are zero provisions in the law that require warnings before an action is taken to issue fines. You can keep saying that they’ll issue warnings, that doesn’t make it true.
  - laumars 9y ago
    Again, there is no precedent in history of any of the members of the EU doing what you keep saying they will do. Personally I trust their track record more than I trust your comments because one is a proof by example and the other is just absurd hypotheticals. Or to phrase it in our own words: You can keep saying that they'll fine your niece millions for a hobby project but that doesn't make it true.

laumars 9y ago

I'm saying there is no precidence in history of any of the EU members imposing a maximum fine against a child for their personal project. You're pulling out the scariest parts of the GDPR and assuming everyone is going to get bettered with it regardless of: * whether they've already been warned or not * their site's size or income * business size or income * nor even the severity of the transgression Thankfully our universe and reality doesn't operate in your worst case fear-mongering. And as I've already stated, you can look back at the history of EU legislation to see evidence to that effect. Posting absurd and unfounded arguments like your previous example really doesn't help the situation one bit.

downandout 9y ago
But it would be legal under the GDPR, correct? That’s the problem with this whole argument. Nobody wants to have to depend on the good graces of the EU to “only” fine them “small” amounts (maybe $2 million instead of $10 million, considering her age and all). This law can be used essentially as an EU imposed tax on the entire Internet, and there’s no reason why it wouldn’t be used that way. By the way, there are zero provisions in the law that require warnings before an action is taken to issue fines. You can keep saying that they’ll issue warnings, that doesn’t make it true.
- laumars 9y ago
  Again, there is no precedent in history of any of the members of the EU doing what you keep saying they will do. Personally I trust their track record more than I trust your comments because one is a proof by example and the other is just absurd hypotheticals. Or to phrase it in our own words: You can keep saying that they'll fine your niece millions for a hobby project but that doesn't make it true.