3 ms·
Not sure how they could persuade if they won't go after lower visibility infringers? I can't follow your logic.
by merinowool 8y ago
Not sure how they could persuade if they won't go after lower visibility infringers? I can't follow your logic.
- EpicEng 8y agoNo one said "they won't go after small timers". Hitting the big players hard makes everyone wary of violating and they will absolutely catch some small fish as well. It's just silly to expect any enforcement body to go after everyone equally. It doesn't even make sense; company A has data on 1.5B people, company B has data on 27 people and the owner's mother. Why would you go after B before A?
- danpalmer 8y agoThey have said this. a) they have said they don't want to punish companies for the sake of it, they want to use it as an incentive to fundamentally change the approach to the handling of user data. This means not suing tiny companies for more money than they are worth. b) they have said that the standards will roughly increase with the size of the company and resources it has. A company with 27 users (and few employees) would not be expected to have a data protection officer, or many of the control processes that a company with data on 1.5B people.
- zerostar07 8y agoI think everyone is talking about the UK 's ICO, which is just 1 of the 28. We have heard nothing from others and its best not to make assumptions - the ICO may be following different rules in a year.
- danpalmer 8y agoTrue, some of this is more from the UK ICO, but some is from the official guidance from the EU.
- merinowool 8y ago> This means not suing tiny companies for more money than they are worth. Which effectively kills that company even if court finds their violation was minimal.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoI never said they wouldn't. But showing that they're willing to go after infringers is easier when you use high visibility cases to do it.