4 ms·

The biggest issue for me is the punitive fines: 4% of revenue or €20 million whichever is greater. That just punishes small companies disproportionately.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
This is a maximum fine. You would not be fined that for a first, unintended offence. You would be warned.
- downandout 9y ago
  This is a maximum fine. You would not be fined that for a first, unintended offence. You would be warned. You don't know that. Show me where, written in the GDPR, it says that warnings must be issued or that there are any circumstances under which the maximum fine must not be imposed. I'll save you some time. It's not there.
  - egourlao 9y ago
    Article 83: > When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case due regard shall be given to [...] the degree of cooperation with the supervisory authority, in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/
    - downandout 9y ago
      That doesn't limit their ability to impose the maximum fine for a first, single violation. It says they should consider some things. But it does not limit their statutory ability to impose the maximum without warning.
      - Latty 9y ago
        In terms of liability insurance, which is the claim here though, the reality is the insurer knows that the EU isn't going to dump 20 million fines on every small company making a first offence. The idea that they are going to treat it like that's the likely outcome is insane.
      - stordoff 9y ago
        Fines must be "effective, proportionate and dissuasive", taking into consideration those factors. A maximal fine for a first, single violation (unless it is a willing and gross violation) is just asking for judicial review.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        There's no reason for them to do that. Look, their goal here is compliance. They don't want to fine a company into oblivion, because that just encourages companies to be fearful and do what you're doing: cut ties with the EU entirely. And that's not a win for them either. I get that it's hard to trust governments, but remember that they're still made up of people. If you deal with the regulators in a straightforward way, and cooperate to the best of your ability, they're not going to stick it to you. No, I don't know that for every single instance. But I also don't know a lot of other things that can add risk to a business, but that doesn't stop me from doing business in general. But sure, if you've done the math, and the cost of compliance isn't worth the EU revenue you'd otherwise get to keep, that's your call. I'm just getting a little tired of all the FUD getting spread around GDPR.
        downandout 9y ago
        There's no reason for them to do that Sure there is. Their government will be the direct beneficiary of the money. Why would they care if they bankrupt a foreign company? In fact, they may use it for this explicit purpose. They win by collecting the money, and they win by decimating foreign competitors of local businesses.
        M2Ys4U 9y ago
        Data protection authorities have to be independent of government according to the GDPR.
- ams6110 9y ago
  When my state first imposed mandatory use of seat belts in cars, the public was assured that "this will not be enforced as a primary offense, only secondary if you are already violating some other law e.g. speeding, expired plates, etc." Well that caveat was not actually written in the law, and enforcement changed later. Now you can be pulled over and fined for nothing other than not wearing a seat belt. So whatever "they say" about enforcement is meaningless. You can only consider what is actually written in the law.
  - miragle 9y ago
    Maybe you should just wear your damn seatbelt, moron. Or is the freedom to go head first through your windshield too enticing? > Well that caveat was not actually written in the law, The caveat is written in the law in this case, so your point is irrelevant.
  - orf 9y ago
    > Now you can be pulled over and fined for nothing other than not wearing a seat belt. Thank god for that.
  - musage 9y ago
    Oh, you mean kinda like when a website says they're tracking their visitors to hell and back to "improve the service", without any hard contract about that precisely means in detail, and then that data ends up in all sorts of hands for all sorts of purposes? Awww.
Hamuko 9y ago
It's the maximum fine to show that EU means business. That's also why they can go up to 4% of a company's global revenue: to show Google and Facebook that they can't bankroll through violations.
- oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
  4% would obviously be a hit to Google or Facebook, but it wouldn't put them out of business. €20 million would certainly put the company I work for out of business. Of course, it's quite unlikely to be fined that, but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more companies folding purely because of the threat.
  - Hamuko 9y ago
    How much is Google's (Alphabet's) and Facebook's revenue income? And how many times can they get fined for violations before they stop making a profit?
  - miragle 9y ago
    > 4% would obviously be a hit to Google or Facebook, but it wouldn't put them out of business. The point is it would put them out of business if they continued to flout the law. They can't just break the law and keep paying fines. If they get fined, they'll quickly realise they need to make changes.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
This is repeated ad nauseam: what you quote is the maximum for the worst offenders. The GDPR explicitly says the penalties must be adequate.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

This is a maximum fine. You would not be fined that for a first, unintended offence. You would be warned.

downandout 9y ago
This is a maximum fine. You would not be fined that for a first, unintended offence. You would be warned. You don't know that. Show me where, written in the GDPR, it says that warnings must be issued or that there are any circumstances under which the maximum fine must not be imposed. I'll save you some time. It's not there.
- egourlao 9y ago
  Article 83: > When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case due regard shall be given to [...] the degree of cooperation with the supervisory authority, in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/
  - downandout 9y ago
    That doesn't limit their ability to impose the maximum fine for a first, single violation. It says they should consider some things. But it does not limit their statutory ability to impose the maximum without warning.
    - Latty 9y ago
      In terms of liability insurance, which is the claim here though, the reality is the insurer knows that the EU isn't going to dump 20 million fines on every small company making a first offence. The idea that they are going to treat it like that's the likely outcome is insane.
    - stordoff 9y ago
      Fines must be "effective, proportionate and dissuasive", taking into consideration those factors. A maximal fine for a first, single violation (unless it is a willing and gross violation) is just asking for judicial review.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      There's no reason for them to do that. Look, their goal here is compliance. They don't want to fine a company into oblivion, because that just encourages companies to be fearful and do what you're doing: cut ties with the EU entirely. And that's not a win for them either. I get that it's hard to trust governments, but remember that they're still made up of people. If you deal with the regulators in a straightforward way, and cooperate to the best of your ability, they're not going to stick it to you. No, I don't know that for every single instance. But I also don't know a lot of other things that can add risk to a business, but that doesn't stop me from doing business in general. But sure, if you've done the math, and the cost of compliance isn't worth the EU revenue you'd otherwise get to keep, that's your call. I'm just getting a little tired of all the FUD getting spread around GDPR.
      - downandout 9y ago
        There's no reason for them to do that Sure there is. Their government will be the direct beneficiary of the money. Why would they care if they bankrupt a foreign company? In fact, they may use it for this explicit purpose. They win by collecting the money, and they win by decimating foreign competitors of local businesses.
        M2Ys4U 9y ago
        Data protection authorities have to be independent of government according to the GDPR.
ams6110 9y ago
When my state first imposed mandatory use of seat belts in cars, the public was assured that "this will not be enforced as a primary offense, only secondary if you are already violating some other law e.g. speeding, expired plates, etc." Well that caveat was not actually written in the law, and enforcement changed later. Now you can be pulled over and fined for nothing other than not wearing a seat belt. So whatever "they say" about enforcement is meaningless. You can only consider what is actually written in the law.
- miragle 9y ago
  Maybe you should just wear your damn seatbelt, moron. Or is the freedom to go head first through your windshield too enticing? > Well that caveat was not actually written in the law, The caveat is written in the law in this case, so your point is irrelevant.
- orf 9y ago
  > Now you can be pulled over and fined for nothing other than not wearing a seat belt. Thank god for that.
- musage 9y ago
  Oh, you mean kinda like when a website says they're tracking their visitors to hell and back to "improve the service", without any hard contract about that precisely means in detail, and then that data ends up in all sorts of hands for all sorts of purposes? Awww.

Hamuko 9y ago

It's the maximum fine to show that EU means business. That's also why they can go up to 4% of a company's global revenue: to show Google and Facebook that they can't bankroll through violations.

oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
4% would obviously be a hit to Google or Facebook, but it wouldn't put them out of business. €20 million would certainly put the company I work for out of business. Of course, it's quite unlikely to be fined that, but I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more companies folding purely because of the threat.
- Hamuko 9y ago
  How much is Google's (Alphabet's) and Facebook's revenue income? And how many times can they get fined for violations before they stop making a profit?
- miragle 9y ago
  > 4% would obviously be a hit to Google or Facebook, but it wouldn't put them out of business. The point is it would put them out of business if they continued to flout the law. They can't just break the law and keep paying fines. If they get fined, they'll quickly realise they need to make changes.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

This is repeated ad nauseam: what you quote is the maximum for the worst offenders. The GDPR explicitly says the penalties must be adequate.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]