5 ms·

Many, but not all of them said this. Given that GDPR has absolutely no requirement that warnings be issued, it is not reasonable to expect that warnings were i

Many, but not all of them said this. Given that GDPR has absolutely no requirement that warnings be issued, it is not reasonable to expect that warnings were issued and/or ignored in cases where it doesn’t specifically say this occurred.

laughinghan 7y ago
You don't seem to have brought up any cases where we know that fines were imposed without a warning, nor any reason to believe this particular case was special. If, out of all the cases that we do know whether warnings were issued, warnings were in fact issued in the vast majority of them (or even 100% of the known cases), then for a case where we don't know and have no reason to believe is special, isn't the reasonable assumption that it's not special and is no different from the other cases?
- downandout 7y ago
  Once again, under GDPR, it is entirely legal to issue fines without a warning. Therefore, in any case where it does not say that there was a warning, one can reasonably assume that no warning occurred - especially given that in some cases (according to you, most cases) they did say something about a warning. The absence of the mention of a warning in this context implies that there wasn’t one. The point is, and no one has been able to refute this, that warnings are not required under GDPR. Even if they have issued warnings in most cases thus far, it is still early days. As these actions under GDPR become more common, there is no guarantee that even those countries that have been issuing warnings first will continue to do so. The enforcement of regulations that have the potential to generate massive revenue streams for government entities tends to become increasingly aggressive and creative as time goes on. I don’t understand why anyone, even those in favor of GDPR, would attempt to refute the black and white text of the law. No warnings are required under GDPR, and thus the potential exists for fines to be issued without warning. There is no argument or opinion to be interjected here. This is a binary fact. Are warnings required? No, warnings are not required. It’s that simple.
  - tempestn 7y ago
    No one is saying warnings are required. I said I expected one was given, because 1) it appears to be the common practice, and 2) it is the reasonable thing to do. So I doubt that this person would have been fined without a warning, but indeed, I have no way of knowing. That said, I'm open to the idea that perhaps the law should stipulate a warning, but perhaps the language around proportionality/reasonableness is sufficient.
    - downandout 7y ago
      perhaps the language around proportionality/reasonableness is sufficient. It is not. Those terms have enough legal leeway to drive a truck through.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Once again under UK drug law it is entirely legal to send someone to prison for five years (I think) for an eighth of weed. Except it never happens. To get straight to a maximum penalty there would be very damning circumstances. It's why we have regulators, judges and magistrates - to apply judgement and proportionality. Sure there's a few headline cases of some absurdly harsh sentence - and just about always the details reveal there were a lot of very damning circumstances that make the sentence seem pretty reasonable. Do US judges rubber stamp a maximum sentence each and every time? No. Does every visit by police result in prosecution? No. Is every warning and scaling mechanism offenders get in the US expressed perfectly in statute? No. Otherwise you would have fired all the judges as surplus to requirements. You're just spreading FUD. Understand the legal system in Europe before spreading such rubbish.
    - downandout 7y ago
      You appear to be spreading false rumors about them issuing warnings even though they don’t have to. When I organized the data on this site by fine amount, not a single case on the front page said anything about any of the companies fined having received a single warning. So, by comparing this to legal situations where “it never happens” you are purposely misrepresenting the risk of receiving a fine under GDPR without any type of warning. While having an eighth of weed rarely if ever results in a 5 year sentence in the U.K., clearly not receiving a warning before being fined occurs quite frequently. You have made a false equivalence between these two things.
Dayshine 7y ago
Huh? It does have this requirement: Each supervisory authority shall ensure that the imposition of administrative fines pursuant to this Article in respect of infringements of this Regulation referred to in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive When 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: A) 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; b) the intentional or negligent character of the infringement; e) any relevant previous infringements by the controller or processor; i) 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;
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  I don't see anything in that text that requires a warning.

laughinghan 7y ago

You don't seem to have brought up any cases where we know that fines were imposed without a warning, nor any reason to believe this particular case was special. If, out of all the cases that we do know whether warnings were issued, warnings were in fact issued in the vast majority of them (or even 100% of the known cases), then for a case where we don't know and have no reason to believe is special, isn't the reasonable assumption that it's not special and is no different from the other cases?

downandout 7y ago
Once again, under GDPR, it is entirely legal to issue fines without a warning. Therefore, in any case where it does not say that there was a warning, one can reasonably assume that no warning occurred - especially given that in some cases (according to you, most cases) they did say something about a warning. The absence of the mention of a warning in this context implies that there wasn’t one. The point is, and no one has been able to refute this, that warnings are not required under GDPR. Even if they have issued warnings in most cases thus far, it is still early days. As these actions under GDPR become more common, there is no guarantee that even those countries that have been issuing warnings first will continue to do so. The enforcement of regulations that have the potential to generate massive revenue streams for government entities tends to become increasingly aggressive and creative as time goes on. I don’t understand why anyone, even those in favor of GDPR, would attempt to refute the black and white text of the law. No warnings are required under GDPR, and thus the potential exists for fines to be issued without warning. There is no argument or opinion to be interjected here. This is a binary fact. Are warnings required? No, warnings are not required. It’s that simple.
- tempestn 7y ago
  No one is saying warnings are required. I said I expected one was given, because 1) it appears to be the common practice, and 2) it is the reasonable thing to do. So I doubt that this person would have been fined without a warning, but indeed, I have no way of knowing. That said, I'm open to the idea that perhaps the law should stipulate a warning, but perhaps the language around proportionality/reasonableness is sufficient.
  - downandout 7y ago
    perhaps the language around proportionality/reasonableness is sufficient. It is not. Those terms have enough legal leeway to drive a truck through.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Once again under UK drug law it is entirely legal to send someone to prison for five years (I think) for an eighth of weed. Except it never happens. To get straight to a maximum penalty there would be very damning circumstances. It's why we have regulators, judges and magistrates - to apply judgement and proportionality. Sure there's a few headline cases of some absurdly harsh sentence - and just about always the details reveal there were a lot of very damning circumstances that make the sentence seem pretty reasonable. Do US judges rubber stamp a maximum sentence each and every time? No. Does every visit by police result in prosecution? No. Is every warning and scaling mechanism offenders get in the US expressed perfectly in statute? No. Otherwise you would have fired all the judges as surplus to requirements. You're just spreading FUD. Understand the legal system in Europe before spreading such rubbish.
  - downandout 7y ago
    You appear to be spreading false rumors about them issuing warnings even though they don’t have to. When I organized the data on this site by fine amount, not a single case on the front page said anything about any of the companies fined having received a single warning. So, by comparing this to legal situations where “it never happens” you are purposely misrepresenting the risk of receiving a fine under GDPR without any type of warning. While having an eighth of weed rarely if ever results in a 5 year sentence in the U.K., clearly not receiving a warning before being fined occurs quite frequently. You have made a false equivalence between these two things.

Dayshine 7y ago

Huh? It does have this requirement: Each supervisory authority shall ensure that the imposition of administrative fines pursuant to this Article in respect of infringements of this Regulation referred to in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive When 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: A) 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; b) the intentional or negligent character of the infringement; e) any relevant previous infringements by the controller or processor; i) 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;

vonmoltke 7y ago
I don't see anything in that text that requires a warning.