3 ms·

I’m curious what about the potential fines is unclear or up for debate. Practically the only part of GDPR that is completely clear is the fines and lack of lim

I’m curious what about the potential fines is unclear or up for debate. Practically the only part of GDPR that is completely clear is the fines and lack of limits on them. How can you possibly agree with someone that has written lengthy articles essentially saying “ignore what you’re reading in the text of the law”?

DanBC 8y ago
> I’m curious what about the potential fines is unclear or up for debate Can you point to any instance of any of the EU regulators imposing the maximum fine available to them for a data protection breach? We've had these laws for 20 years now.
- downandout 8y ago
  Since the maximum is 20 million EUR, a company-killing fine doesn’t have to be the maximum or anywhere near it for most businesses. Hell, a 100,000 EUR fine would take the vast majority of small sites and their owners into bankruptcy.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Don't you feel dishonest when you keep mentioning the 20m because "that's in the law", but missing out the "proportionate" that's also written into the law? Since you'll never ever mention this, here's all the mitigation that's written into the law. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ --begin-- Administrative fines shall, depending on the circumstances of each individual case, be imposed in addition to, or instead of, measures referred to in points (a) to (h) and (j) of Article 58(2). 2When 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. --end--
    - downandout 8y ago
      Proportionate, which is not defined in the GDPR, is in the eye of the beholder. A country can easily say “we’ll only fine you 200,000 EUR - just 1% of the maximum - because this was a minor violation”. That fine would still destroy most small businesses.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    You'd have to work pretty hard to get a 100,000 euro fine. That's the kind of fine that would be imposed after thumbing your nose at the regulators and continuing in your ways after being warned and the violation being a particularly bad one.
    - downandout 8y ago
      You'd have to work pretty hard to get a 100,000 euro fine. Please show me where it says that, and where it defines “pretty hard”.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I personally would refer you to any number of comments/articles (including my own) pointing out that law is not written like code. Law doesn't work in absolutes, we have judges for a reason. There has to be a law for enforcement of it to occur, and it has to be broad enough that it can't be evaded on technicalities (see the loophole in the EU "cookie law", which GDPR is specifically designed to close). GDPR is actually surprisingly light on concrete technical rules. This isn't PCI compliance where they specify the number of letters that must be in your passwords and what version of TLS you need to use. GDPR creates a framework of general principles you need to adhere to in the best way you know how. (Good laws need to be written this way, since technology changes over time.) It is not in the EU's best interest to punish you for a minor oversight when you are largely a well-behaving corporation, it's in their best interests to encourage you to fill in any gaps when needed.
- downandout 8y ago
  Law doesn't work in absolutes, we have judges for a reason. What laws have you been reading? The whole basis of law is that it must be absolute - otherwise people don’t know how to follow it. People are both exonerated and convicted every day of serious crimes based on nothing more than technicalities (“absolutes”), even when the legal outcome is in direct conflict with the spirit of the law.

DanBC 8y ago

> I’m curious what about the potential fines is unclear or up for debate Can you point to any instance of any of the EU regulators imposing the maximum fine available to them for a data protection breach? We've had these laws for 20 years now.

downandout 8y ago
Since the maximum is 20 million EUR, a company-killing fine doesn’t have to be the maximum or anywhere near it for most businesses. Hell, a 100,000 EUR fine would take the vast majority of small sites and their owners into bankruptcy.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Don't you feel dishonest when you keep mentioning the 20m because "that's in the law", but missing out the "proportionate" that's also written into the law? Since you'll never ever mention this, here's all the mitigation that's written into the law. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ --begin-- Administrative fines shall, depending on the circumstances of each individual case, be imposed in addition to, or instead of, measures referred to in points (a) to (h) and (j) of Article 58(2). 2When 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. --end--
  - downandout 8y ago
    Proportionate, which is not defined in the GDPR, is in the eye of the beholder. A country can easily say “we’ll only fine you 200,000 EUR - just 1% of the maximum - because this was a minor violation”. That fine would still destroy most small businesses.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  You'd have to work pretty hard to get a 100,000 euro fine. That's the kind of fine that would be imposed after thumbing your nose at the regulators and continuing in your ways after being warned and the violation being a particularly bad one.
  - downandout 8y ago
    You'd have to work pretty hard to get a 100,000 euro fine. Please show me where it says that, and where it defines “pretty hard”.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

I personally would refer you to any number of comments/articles (including my own) pointing out that law is not written like code. Law doesn't work in absolutes, we have judges for a reason. There has to be a law for enforcement of it to occur, and it has to be broad enough that it can't be evaded on technicalities (see the loophole in the EU "cookie law", which GDPR is specifically designed to close). GDPR is actually surprisingly light on concrete technical rules. This isn't PCI compliance where they specify the number of letters that must be in your passwords and what version of TLS you need to use. GDPR creates a framework of general principles you need to adhere to in the best way you know how. (Good laws need to be written this way, since technology changes over time.) It is not in the EU's best interest to punish you for a minor oversight when you are largely a well-behaving corporation, it's in their best interests to encourage you to fill in any gaps when needed.

downandout 8y ago
Law doesn't work in absolutes, we have judges for a reason. What laws have you been reading? The whole basis of law is that it must be absolute - otherwise people don’t know how to follow it. People are both exonerated and convicted every day of serious crimes based on nothing more than technicalities (“absolutes”), even when the legal outcome is in direct conflict with the spirit of the law.