4 ms·
It would be better to require a license for (any) data processing at scale which is easily granted (covering all possible use cases) but can be perpetually revo
by quonn 5y ago
It would be better to require a license for (any) data processing at scale which is easily granted (covering all possible use cases) but can be perpetually revoked. That would be taken much more serious than these fines.
- paublyrne 5y agoIf it's already not allowed to use data in this way - thus the fine - what purpose would allowing and revoking the right to do so serve. It's already prohibited.
- colechristensen 5y agoNot “in this way” but at all. in other words if you lose the right to process or possess the data at all. “corporate death penalty” kinds of regulation needs to happen more often
- laurent92 5y agoWhat if law defined the processes more closely? “Billing data must be kept for 2 years numerically and 10 years on an offline device or paper. Marketing data can be kept for 6 months until renewal of consent by the user. The rest is permitted upon license.”
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dahfizz 5y agoAnd what is the punishment for operating without a license? Seems like a roundabout way to implement a fine.
- chopin 5y agoThe compelling thing with GP's proposal would be that it is easier to enforce. If the license is revoked there is no gray area for interpretation left.
- dahfizz 5y agoBoth proponents and opponents of GDPR have said that the ambiguity of GDPR is an intentional feature. It closes loopholes or allows for arbitrary power of politicians, depending on who you ask.