4 ms·

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.
        downandout 9y ago
        They have to be citizens of the given country, do they not? They probably wouldn’t mind their government collecting a few extra million from foreign businesses. It still goes to their benefit.
        kelnos 9y ago
        I get that you're incredibly cynical about this process (and probably any government process), but I really don't see it as dire as you do. I don't think any further discussion will be productive, though, since we seem to be operating under some vastly different base assumptions about human behavior.
    - cjalmeida 9y ago
      Dude, the limitations are explicit on art 83, (2) 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 following: the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement taking into account the nature scope or purpose of the processing concerned as well as the number of data subjects affected and the level of damage suffered by them; the intentional or negligent character of the infringement; any action taken by the controller or processor to mitigate the damage suffered by data subjects; the degree of responsibility of the controller or processor taking into account technical and organisational measures implemented by them pursuant to Articles 25 and 32; any relevant previous infringements by the controller or processor; the degree of cooperation with the supervisory authority, in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement; the categories of personal data affected by the infringement; the manner in which the infringement became known to the supervisory authority, in particular whether, and if so to what extent, the controller or processor notified the infringement; where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have previously been ordered against the controller or processor concerned with regard to the same subject-matter, compliance with those measures; adherence to approved codes of conduct pursuant to Article 40 or approved certification mechanisms pursuant to Article 42; and any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the circumstances of the case, such as financial benefits gained, or losses avoided, directly or indirectly, from the infringement. You should DEFINITELY look for a better lawyer. Pro tip: one not looking to sell mitigation services.
      - downandout 9y ago
        Show me where, either in your pasted text, or in the rest of the GDPR, it says that there are circumstances or mitigating factors that MUST result in a fine less than maximum. There is no such clause.
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.

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.
        downandout 9y ago
        They have to be citizens of the given country, do they not? They probably wouldn’t mind their government collecting a few extra million from foreign businesses. It still goes to their benefit.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        I get that you're incredibly cynical about this process (and probably any government process), but I really don't see it as dire as you do. I don't think any further discussion will be productive, though, since we seem to be operating under some vastly different base assumptions about human behavior.
  - cjalmeida 9y ago
    Dude, the limitations are explicit on art 83, (2) 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 following: the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement taking into account the nature scope or purpose of the processing concerned as well as the number of data subjects affected and the level of damage suffered by them; the intentional or negligent character of the infringement; any action taken by the controller or processor to mitigate the damage suffered by data subjects; the degree of responsibility of the controller or processor taking into account technical and organisational measures implemented by them pursuant to Articles 25 and 32; any relevant previous infringements by the controller or processor; the degree of cooperation with the supervisory authority, in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the infringement; the categories of personal data affected by the infringement; the manner in which the infringement became known to the supervisory authority, in particular whether, and if so to what extent, the controller or processor notified the infringement; where measures referred to in Article 58(2) have previously been ordered against the controller or processor concerned with regard to the same subject-matter, compliance with those measures; adherence to approved codes of conduct pursuant to Article 40 or approved certification mechanisms pursuant to Article 42; and any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the circumstances of the case, such as financial benefits gained, or losses avoided, directly or indirectly, from the infringement. You should DEFINITELY look for a better lawyer. Pro tip: one not looking to sell mitigation services.
    - downandout 9y ago
      Show me where, either in your pasted text, or in the rest of the GDPR, it says that there are circumstances or mitigating factors that MUST result in a fine less than maximum. There is no such clause.

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.