6 ms·

As always with these cynical comments about fines, it misunderstands the nature of them. Google or any other company does not get to just continue their practic

As always with these cynical comments about fines, it misunderstands the nature of them. Google or any other company does not get to just continue their practices as usual, the fine is purely "punishment" for the bad behavior in the past. The real teeth is in the changes they will be forced to make. The EC's three antitrust cases against Google don't end with the billions of dollars in fines they have to pay. Google would gladly pay them if it meant they could continue their anti-competitive practices, it would just be a cost of doing business. But that's not the point of them.

LeanderK 8y ago
but wouldn't a fine that's actually sizable send a different signal? I don't get how google can violate somthing like this and the only results is the enforecement of existing law and some fine? Or I am not getting something?
- Despegar 8y ago
  GDPR would have allowed fines of up to 4% of Google's global turnover. That's a bazooka you don't use for every infraction. If Google is found to be a repeat offender or fails to comply, that's probably when regulators will use that particular tool in their toolbox.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    > That's a bazooka you don't use for every infraction. Use it once, and you won't have to use it again. I don't know the usual english translation of a quote attributed to Mao: punish one, teach one hundred. Handing out fines that actually hurt will not only teach those that receive it but also everybody else. Making knuddels.de pay €20k for leaking the data (including clear text passwords) of millions of users just says "do as you please, here's a symbolic fine, we don't mind".
    - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
      I mean, there's a reason that quote is attributed to Mao. When regulators fire off ruinous fines as a first resort, the lesson companies learn is not that everything will be okay if they follow the rules.
      - luckylion 8y ago
        You're probably right, they don't want to hurt the actors on the first offence. We shall see whether it will turn into a three-strikes system, or remain in a rather pedagogical western european fashion. It does remind me off Google vs SEO-Black-Hat-Spammers. They get caught, the get a manual penalty, they remove the worst, say they're sorry, the penalty gets lifted, they continue on.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      The $50bn fine gets paid and steps taken to comply in future. The $4bn fine gets more appeals and politicians dragged in.
- pgeorgi 8y ago
  > the only results is the enforcement of existing law and some fine? The job of European data protection agencies isn't to be punitive, but to ensure compliance. If the issue was tiny, an honest mistake that was promptly fixed when it was brought to the offender's attention, and they show that they implement safeguards so that something like that won't happen again, there may be no fine at all. Compared to this, EUR 50M is rather heavy handed, but given that Google has approximately $infinity at their disposal, no value would "ensure compliance". What this does is ensure that the topic will be discussed by the board of directors (50M is probably beyond the discretionary spending budget of the not-quite-top level manager who handled this) with the outlook that there may be more fines like that. OTOH it's still far from that "4% of global revenue" figure, so it gives room for escalation. Hopefully it's also small enough that it won't be disfigured too much into "the evil EU is being protectionist again!" US press cycle that comes up every time a US company is fined by some EU body.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    > The job of European data protection agencies isn't to be punitive, but to ensure compliance. Wouldn't larger fines ensure compliance though?
    - ldng 8y ago
      Well next fine, if nothing is done to comply, will be heavier. For better or worse, that's how it is intended to work.
- SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
  It would send a different signal that France doesn't necessarily want to send. If the fine for having a bad UX over passable data privacy configurations is billions of dollars, and the fine for not making an effort at all is also billions of dollars, that doesn't really encourage the right behavior.
- LanceH 8y ago
  Larger fines can tell companies at large that it is unsafe to do business in that jurisdiction.
synctext 8y ago
CNIL: "Therefore, it is of its utmost responsibility to comply with the obligations on the matter."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jellicle 8y ago
"You should definitely make these major changes to your lifestyle, and if you don't, in about ten years or so we will fine you $25." Will you make those changes?
mtgx 8y ago
> the fine is purely "punishment" for the bad behavior in the past. Is it, though? Isn't the punishment supposed to fit the crime? I think if corporations will continue to do what they want with impunity paying slap on the wrist fines for major illegalities, and passing laws in their favor through lobbying, people will eventually get fed up like they have in France, or worse. Then, more countries' populations will start demanding from their governments to impose the death penalty for corporations (at least in that government's jurisdiction) and mandatory arrests of top executives for serious corporate crimes and harm against consumers. If the trend continues, I think it's only a matter of time until these demands become reality.
amelius 8y ago
Ok, but can you translate this line of thought to a fine at the scale of an individual, for example a speeding ticket?
- kcorbitt 8y ago
  "Here is a $100 fine because we caught you speeding in a poorly-marked zone. Of course, now that you unambiguously know what the speed limit is here, if we catch you speeding again, we will take your house."
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Why does Goldman Sachs, HSBC, etc have houses...?
- seszett 8y ago
  A speeding fine is the punishment, and the limited amount of points on the driving licence, some of which are taken away at each infraction, are the incentive for changing behaviour.

LeanderK 8y ago

but wouldn't a fine that's actually sizable send a different signal? I don't get how google can violate somthing like this and the only results is the enforecement of existing law and some fine? Or I am not getting something?

Despegar 8y ago
GDPR would have allowed fines of up to 4% of Google's global turnover. That's a bazooka you don't use for every infraction. If Google is found to be a repeat offender or fails to comply, that's probably when regulators will use that particular tool in their toolbox.
- luckylion 8y ago
  > That's a bazooka you don't use for every infraction. Use it once, and you won't have to use it again. I don't know the usual english translation of a quote attributed to Mao: punish one, teach one hundred. Handing out fines that actually hurt will not only teach those that receive it but also everybody else. Making knuddels.de pay €20k for leaking the data (including clear text passwords) of millions of users just says "do as you please, here's a symbolic fine, we don't mind".
  - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
    I mean, there's a reason that quote is attributed to Mao. When regulators fire off ruinous fines as a first resort, the lesson companies learn is not that everything will be okay if they follow the rules.
    - luckylion 8y ago
      You're probably right, they don't want to hurt the actors on the first offence. We shall see whether it will turn into a three-strikes system, or remain in a rather pedagogical western european fashion. It does remind me off Google vs SEO-Black-Hat-Spammers. They get caught, the get a manual penalty, they remove the worst, say they're sorry, the penalty gets lifted, they continue on.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    The $50bn fine gets paid and steps taken to comply in future. The $4bn fine gets more appeals and politicians dragged in.
pgeorgi 8y ago
> the only results is the enforcement of existing law and some fine? The job of European data protection agencies isn't to be punitive, but to ensure compliance. If the issue was tiny, an honest mistake that was promptly fixed when it was brought to the offender's attention, and they show that they implement safeguards so that something like that won't happen again, there may be no fine at all. Compared to this, EUR 50M is rather heavy handed, but given that Google has approximately $infinity at their disposal, no value would "ensure compliance". What this does is ensure that the topic will be discussed by the board of directors (50M is probably beyond the discretionary spending budget of the not-quite-top level manager who handled this) with the outlook that there may be more fines like that. OTOH it's still far from that "4% of global revenue" figure, so it gives room for escalation. Hopefully it's also small enough that it won't be disfigured too much into "the evil EU is being protectionist again!" US press cycle that comes up every time a US company is fined by some EU body.
- luckylion 8y ago
  > The job of European data protection agencies isn't to be punitive, but to ensure compliance. Wouldn't larger fines ensure compliance though?
  - ldng 8y ago
    Well next fine, if nothing is done to comply, will be heavier. For better or worse, that's how it is intended to work.
SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
It would send a different signal that France doesn't necessarily want to send. If the fine for having a bad UX over passable data privacy configurations is billions of dollars, and the fine for not making an effort at all is also billions of dollars, that doesn't really encourage the right behavior.
LanceH 8y ago
Larger fines can tell companies at large that it is unsafe to do business in that jurisdiction.

synctext 8y ago

CNIL: "Therefore, it is of its utmost responsibility to comply with the obligations on the matter."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jellicle 8y ago

"You should definitely make these major changes to your lifestyle, and if you don't, in about ten years or so we will fine you $25." Will you make those changes?

mtgx 8y ago

> the fine is purely "punishment" for the bad behavior in the past. Is it, though? Isn't the punishment supposed to fit the crime? I think if corporations will continue to do what they want with impunity paying slap on the wrist fines for major illegalities, and passing laws in their favor through lobbying, people will eventually get fed up like they have in France, or worse. Then, more countries' populations will start demanding from their governments to impose the death penalty for corporations (at least in that government's jurisdiction) and mandatory arrests of top executives for serious corporate crimes and harm against consumers. If the trend continues, I think it's only a matter of time until these demands become reality.

amelius 8y ago

Ok, but can you translate this line of thought to a fine at the scale of an individual, for example a speeding ticket?

kcorbitt 8y ago
"Here is a $100 fine because we caught you speeding in a poorly-marked zone. Of course, now that you unambiguously know what the speed limit is here, if we catch you speeding again, we will take your house."
- acct1771 8y ago
  Why does Goldman Sachs, HSBC, etc have houses...?
seszett 8y ago
A speeding fine is the punishment, and the limited amount of points on the driving licence, some of which are taken away at each infraction, are the incentive for changing behaviour.