3 ms·

I don't care what the regulators might assess as a fine out of the goodness of their heart or how annoyed they are or how late they ate lunch that day[1]. I car

I don't care what the regulators might assess as a fine out of the goodness of their heart or how annoyed they are or how late they ate lunch that day[1]. I care what the law says and provides for. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/11/justice-is-served-but-more-so-after-lunch-how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/1...

hluska 9y ago
Then, you should give articles 58 and 83 a read. 58 details EU powers under GDPR. 83 details the factors that should be taken into account before levying administrative fines. In 83, you'll notice that the character of the infringement and any acts to mitigate the damage of the infringement are relevant. GDPR has strong language around the purpose of fines and the kinds of considerations that should be made before imposing them. Being overly punitive, especially if a company shows good faith effort to comply, would only welcome judicial oversight. What would the EU gain in such a scenario? And what could the EU lose in such a scenario?
- downandout 9y ago
  What would the EU gain in such a scenario? And what could the EU lose in such a scenario? It gains the millions of dollars from the fines, in addition to aiding local EU competitors by bankrupting or hobbling their international foes. It loses nothing. You can’t see why that’s an incentive and indeed an invitation to abuse GDPR?
  - hluska 9y ago
    That's highly unlikely. First, I have significant trouble believing that the entire European Union would collude to attack international companies in favour of local companies. For a perfect example of this, do some research into the International Procurement Instrument. The IPI is an example of when the EU as a whole has bent over backwards to make sure that non-EU companies have fair access to EU public contracts, even if the playing fields are not level and EU companies don't have equivalent access to the non-EU markets. I assume that you're North American (I am too), so reading about the IPI will seem like comedy hour at Bizarro world, particularly when you see how difficult protectionism is in the EU. Second, it's worth noting that your scenario as described gets uncomfortably close to a definition of passive corruption. Again, I have significant trouble believing that you could get so many people to agree to do something so potentially explosive. And third, the EU currently has a very strong tool in its arsenal to enhance data security. The GDPR is very strong because it's ambiguous and people like you are scared of it. The moment that GDPR starts to face legal challenges, that ambiguity will get chipped away.

hluska 9y ago

Then, you should give articles 58 and 83 a read. 58 details EU powers under GDPR. 83 details the factors that should be taken into account before levying administrative fines. In 83, you'll notice that the character of the infringement and any acts to mitigate the damage of the infringement are relevant. GDPR has strong language around the purpose of fines and the kinds of considerations that should be made before imposing them. Being overly punitive, especially if a company shows good faith effort to comply, would only welcome judicial oversight. What would the EU gain in such a scenario? And what could the EU lose in such a scenario?

downandout 9y ago
What would the EU gain in such a scenario? And what could the EU lose in such a scenario? It gains the millions of dollars from the fines, in addition to aiding local EU competitors by bankrupting or hobbling their international foes. It loses nothing. You can’t see why that’s an incentive and indeed an invitation to abuse GDPR?
- hluska 9y ago
  That's highly unlikely. First, I have significant trouble believing that the entire European Union would collude to attack international companies in favour of local companies. For a perfect example of this, do some research into the International Procurement Instrument. The IPI is an example of when the EU as a whole has bent over backwards to make sure that non-EU companies have fair access to EU public contracts, even if the playing fields are not level and EU companies don't have equivalent access to the non-EU markets. I assume that you're North American (I am too), so reading about the IPI will seem like comedy hour at Bizarro world, particularly when you see how difficult protectionism is in the EU. Second, it's worth noting that your scenario as described gets uncomfortably close to a definition of passive corruption. Again, I have significant trouble believing that you could get so many people to agree to do something so potentially explosive. And third, the EU currently has a very strong tool in its arsenal to enhance data security. The GDPR is very strong because it's ambiguous and people like you are scared of it. The moment that GDPR starts to face legal challenges, that ambiguity will get chipped away.