3 ms·

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

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.

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.