4 ms·

20 million is the max penalty for repeat offenders. See article 83 about fines being proportinate to the offense: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ https://gdpr

20 million is the max penalty for repeat offenders. See article 83 about fines being proportinate to the offense: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ This is a european thing, if any law says $x is the max fine or alike, then for a first time offense you usually get much less.

tlrobinson 8y ago
"usually" is the problem.
- beberlei 8y ago
  how is interpretation of the law not a problem with any law that was in effect before GDPR. It didn't stop anybody from starting businesses before and will not after.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    It's punishment amounts. Laws should strive for minimal maximums and reasonable ranges to apply that interpretation in. We don't say every crime is punishable up to a life sentence for a reason. The more leeway the law provides, the more room for abuse (for either side). It would not have been hard to define multiple reasonable ranges, but sadly they think these values are what gives the law "teeth" (instead of actual enforcement which is what should provide it).
    - beberlei 8y ago
      The EU had competition law before that mentions 10% of global turnover as a maximum fee, along with very detailed notes of how to set them: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:210:0002:0005:EN:PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:... The Sherman Act also mentions a ceiling of 10 million, 3 years of prison for private persons. And from history we know antitrust authorities broke up companies like AT&T or Standard Oil, which seems to me a much bigger punishment. Both laws only mention the maximum fine. Yet you don't see small companies sweating over competition law.
      - kodablah 8y ago
        > Yet you don't see small companies sweating over competition law. They would if it applied to them and they had to do work to comply. This is very simple. If a law applies to a company, companies will worry about it and the perceived risks. If a law doesn't apply to a company, they won't worry. Ideally, both the laws and their punishments are as narrowly scoped as possible to prevent abuse at the whims of enforcer subjectivity. It goes without saying that a business not affected by a law won't sweat it like they might if affected by a law. Couple that with ambiguities in the legislation and effort to comply and it's clear why small businesses sweat one and not the other. It's a very poor comparison.
        bigbugbag 8y ago
        your argument applies exactly the same to GDPR, entities that do not engage in collecting or processing personal data have no reason to sweat. Those who are following the law that had been introduced in the EU in 1995 either. Had you read the GDPR you'd knew that punishment is proportional to the offense, had you read the regulation in charge of receiving complaints you'd know that they said they will first give a chance to comply to the law before resorting to punishment. The only ambiguity is in the broad term "legitimate interest" offering exemption to GDPR.
    - bigbugbag 8y ago
      Sorry but I don't understand how defining multiple ranges would have been simpler than only having one. I also fail to see how 4% of global annual revenue is unreasonable considering facebook and google have both been fined the previous maximum amount of 150 000€ with no consequences for them and they went about their day keeping at doing what they were doing that caused them to be fined.
stickfigure 8y ago
I would still be bankrupted by "much less" than $20 million.
- bigbugbag 8y ago
  Good for you. now understand that fines are proportionate to the offense. Are you engaging in doing very bad thing to personal data on a very large scale and having a business based on this ? no ? then what are you afraid of ? that failing to answert to one guy asking for what data you have on him will cause you to be fined to bankruptcy level ? I pity the fool as said that one guy.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    Your fundamental argument seems to be "this will only affect bad actors" but I don't think the history of law in any part of the world justifies such optimism. Or how about: I'm sure the advocates for civil asset forfeiture made similar arguments. If you want to argue that prosecutors on your side of the pond are impervious to corruption, well, consider that you're including Spain, Italy, and Greece in that body politic (at least for now).

tlrobinson 8y ago

"usually" is the problem.

beberlei 8y ago
how is interpretation of the law not a problem with any law that was in effect before GDPR. It didn't stop anybody from starting businesses before and will not after.
- kodablah 8y ago
  It's punishment amounts. Laws should strive for minimal maximums and reasonable ranges to apply that interpretation in. We don't say every crime is punishable up to a life sentence for a reason. The more leeway the law provides, the more room for abuse (for either side). It would not have been hard to define multiple reasonable ranges, but sadly they think these values are what gives the law "teeth" (instead of actual enforcement which is what should provide it).
  - beberlei 8y ago
    The EU had competition law before that mentions 10% of global turnover as a maximum fee, along with very detailed notes of how to set them: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:210:0002:0005:EN:PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:... The Sherman Act also mentions a ceiling of 10 million, 3 years of prison for private persons. And from history we know antitrust authorities broke up companies like AT&T or Standard Oil, which seems to me a much bigger punishment. Both laws only mention the maximum fine. Yet you don't see small companies sweating over competition law.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      > Yet you don't see small companies sweating over competition law. They would if it applied to them and they had to do work to comply. This is very simple. If a law applies to a company, companies will worry about it and the perceived risks. If a law doesn't apply to a company, they won't worry. Ideally, both the laws and their punishments are as narrowly scoped as possible to prevent abuse at the whims of enforcer subjectivity. It goes without saying that a business not affected by a law won't sweat it like they might if affected by a law. Couple that with ambiguities in the legislation and effort to comply and it's clear why small businesses sweat one and not the other. It's a very poor comparison.
      - bigbugbag 8y ago
        your argument applies exactly the same to GDPR, entities that do not engage in collecting or processing personal data have no reason to sweat. Those who are following the law that had been introduced in the EU in 1995 either. Had you read the GDPR you'd knew that punishment is proportional to the offense, had you read the regulation in charge of receiving complaints you'd know that they said they will first give a chance to comply to the law before resorting to punishment. The only ambiguity is in the broad term "legitimate interest" offering exemption to GDPR.
  - bigbugbag 8y ago
    Sorry but I don't understand how defining multiple ranges would have been simpler than only having one. I also fail to see how 4% of global annual revenue is unreasonable considering facebook and google have both been fined the previous maximum amount of 150 000€ with no consequences for them and they went about their day keeping at doing what they were doing that caused them to be fined.

stickfigure 8y ago

I would still be bankrupted by "much less" than $20 million.

bigbugbag 8y ago
Good for you. now understand that fines are proportionate to the offense. Are you engaging in doing very bad thing to personal data on a very large scale and having a business based on this ? no ? then what are you afraid of ? that failing to answert to one guy asking for what data you have on him will cause you to be fined to bankruptcy level ? I pity the fool as said that one guy.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  Your fundamental argument seems to be "this will only affect bad actors" but I don't think the history of law in any part of the world justifies such optimism. Or how about: I'm sure the advocates for civil asset forfeiture made similar arguments. If you want to argue that prosecutors on your side of the pond are impervious to corruption, well, consider that you're including Spain, Italy, and Greece in that body politic (at least for now).