5 ms·

You’re conveniently ignoring that the percentage-based fine structure in itself is almost literally “accounting for scale”. The minimum (of the maximum) set by

You’re conveniently ignoring that the percentage-based fine structure in itself is almost literally “accounting for scale”. The minimum (of the maximum) set by the “whichever is higher” clause is needed to remain effective with non- and low-revenue entities. Something like Clearview (universal face recognition but startup with little revenue) would otherwise be free to ignore the law. If your small company does enough damage to warrant a 20 million fine, it probably deserves to die. These fines also aren’t assessed arbitrarily: there’s a specific list of factors to take into account, and all decisions are subject to judicial review under the established principles of proportionality.

novok 7y ago
> These fines also aren’t assessed arbitrarily: there’s a specific list of factors to take into account, and all decisions are subject to judicial review under the established principles of proportionality. You hope bureaucrats do not act mechanistically and do not apply proportionality, but over and over again in recent history you see that exact behavior. Which is why no business trusts a statement of 'they'll be might be nice, but nothing is effectively stopping them from not being nice other than some platitudes'!
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  > You hope bureaucrats do not act ... nothing is effectively stopping them from not being nice other than some platitudes One argument goes something like this: The state always reserves the right to extinguish you, either by execution or permanent non-judicial incarceration, regardless of laws. We all can only always hope state-level actors don't abuse their powers. Whether they are or aren't at any particular time is somewhat subjective.