2 ms·

edit: Jail? Asset seizure? Nah, you want to make it non-viable as a business decision. Something like… Revoke their license retroactively to when they start

edit: Jail? Asset seizure? Nah, you want to make it non-viable as a business decision. Something like… Revoke their license retroactively to when they started doing this to consumers. Charge them for all individual incidents at maximum allocation per law. Allow the option of reduced fees per incident based on how quickly the business responds. Hold a minimum value per incident that you do not go under. Increase their tax responsibility by 15% for the next 5 years.

autoexec 4y ago
Why not do most of that too? Yes, it should be non-viable as a business decision, but also something that will result in very personal and life altering consequences for those running the company. If I spied on even just a single person like this I'd be thrown in prison as a stalker. "Charge them for all individual incidents at maximum allocation per law." would mean a life sentence for CEOs when really just a decade or two behind bars would be enough to ensure that companies don't risk it.
- bozhark 4y ago
  ¿Por que no los dos? The individual goes to jail, not the company. So how much does a fall guy cost a company? That’s just cost of business if responsibility is only held by the individual.
m12k 4y ago
I think the GDPR has shown that all you need to do is set fines as a % of revenue, and they'll be taken seriously.
- bozhark 4y ago
  I would make a shell corp that held all revenue. No obligation to fines. The key is to set multiple avenues of responsibility. It may be easy to find loopholes individually, but collectively it would become too burdensome. At least, for the company, make skirting the charges be as costly as following suit.
- autoexec 4y ago
  There is a very long list of companies who have been fined for GDPR violations, and several which have been fined repeatedly. It's not working. Show me a list of companies which have been dissolved or were broken up and sold off after GDPR violations. Then it might be enough to be taken seriously.
malfist 4y ago
Why do we have to make sure the company doesn't go under with our fines? We don't make sure criminals aren't too impacted by jail, why should corporations be different?

autoexec 4y ago

Why not do most of that too? Yes, it should be non-viable as a business decision, but also something that will result in very personal and life altering consequences for those running the company. If I spied on even just a single person like this I'd be thrown in prison as a stalker. "Charge them for all individual incidents at maximum allocation per law." would mean a life sentence for CEOs when really just a decade or two behind bars would be enough to ensure that companies don't risk it.

bozhark 4y ago
¿Por que no los dos? The individual goes to jail, not the company. So how much does a fall guy cost a company? That’s just cost of business if responsibility is only held by the individual.

m12k 4y ago

I think the GDPR has shown that all you need to do is set fines as a % of revenue, and they'll be taken seriously.

bozhark 4y ago
I would make a shell corp that held all revenue. No obligation to fines. The key is to set multiple avenues of responsibility. It may be easy to find loopholes individually, but collectively it would become too burdensome. At least, for the company, make skirting the charges be as costly as following suit.
autoexec 4y ago
There is a very long list of companies who have been fined for GDPR violations, and several which have been fined repeatedly. It's not working. Show me a list of companies which have been dissolved or were broken up and sold off after GDPR violations. Then it might be enough to be taken seriously.

malfist 4y ago

Why do we have to make sure the company doesn't go under with our fines? We don't make sure criminals aren't too impacted by jail, why should corporations be different?