3 ms·
There are other examples at least from Germany where no warning or time to rectify was given, just a fine. https://iapp.org/news/a/germanys-first-fine-under-th
by easytiger 7y ago
There are other examples at least from Germany where no warning or time to rectify was given, just a fine.
https://iapp.org/news/a/germanys-first-fine-under-the-gdpr-offers-enforcement-insights/ https://iapp.org/news/a/germanys-first-fine-under-the-gdpr-o...
- downandout 7y agoI lost 50 karma points trying to point out that warnings aren’t required. Tread lightly when disputing HN groupthink...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago800k email records and passwords in plain text when breached. I don't know how big Knuddels are, so I don't know if that fine sounds lenient, right or high. Yet as it's a large breach it seems fitting of no warning first, considering the scale of negligence, mitigated by their "exemplary cooperation" afterwards. Which goes to show why the regulators get the discretion to decide appropriate action from warning only to maximum fine. Without context and aggravating and mitigating factors we can't know, which was my point. If a penalty is disproportionate there's well worn appeal tracks. Other comments seem to point to the small case in OP comment being some guy running a list to harass people, which seems like a huge aggravating factor to me. Maybe he got one warning, maybe in context he didn't deserve even that.