4 ms·

Well it wasn't in the comment, they just mentioned a fine, not any other penalty. Moreover, have you seen how some people (generally wealthier, but not always)

Well it wasn't in the comment, they just mentioned a fine, not any other penalty. Moreover, have you seen how some people (generally wealthier, but not always) treat, say, paid parking? They just don't pay at all, because it's not worth the hassle for them. Sometimes even with the occasional enforcement, they come out ahead compared to just paying the original fee. But even if it isn't worth it financially, it's often worth their time, so they do it without really caring one way or the other. Anyway... the penalty for shoplifting (assuming they bother to go after you) isn't generally a "pay this fine and return what you stole". It's being subject to everything that comes with crimes... dealing with law enforcement, tarnishing your personal record, potentially getting jail time depending on the severity, etc. Any civil case that you might get filed against you for damages, attorneys' fees, etc. is just icing on the cake, and hardly the meat of the punishment.

Nevermark 3y ago
Ok, but let's strong man this instead of finding reasons not to consider it. If they get caught it's $100 and they need to delete it. Caught with the same data its $1000. Furthermore, if they are caught storing data in a pattern, say 100 people catch them within a year of the first, the fine retroactively becomes $1000 per incident over the time of the pattern. With a Judge having discretion to raise fines, retroactively and inclusive of new violations, for companies that simply refuse to comply. I feel like this could work. In fact, I would think most companies would start designing their systems to ensure they didn't violate by accident. Which is what they are supposed to be doing, but not.
- dataflow 3y ago
  > but let's strong man this instead of finding reasons not to consider it. Why though? You need to give a good motivation for avoiding the obvious and direct solutions in the first place before anyone sees any reason to go through the effort of strongmanning an alternative. If I was proposing a $50 fine as the penalty for random people caught squatting in your house would you be interested in strawmanning it just because it makes for fun argumentation? I sure wouldn't. And anyway, I already commented on the merits of this idea in my earlier comments: you're not at all considering the fact that $100 (or even $1000 or more) might be well worth it for certain people's information. It just might not be the entire population, is all. You're just picking winners and losers with this approach, on both sides, is all.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Nobody is likely to catch corporations obtaining or holding information on just a few people they have some special interest in. They wouldn't even have to store that info in their regular systems. But making it unsustainable for them to make a habit of it, which is something that impacts millions of people, is possible, with escalating fines. Also, it doesn't make sense to say a business will just take fines as a cost of business, without taking the size of fines into account. Clearly there is a number that they will respond to, because that is what they do. Respond to hard currency numbers in whatever objective way will let them maximize what they keep.

Nevermark 3y ago

Ok, but let's strong man this instead of finding reasons not to consider it. If they get caught it's $100 and they need to delete it. Caught with the same data its $1000. Furthermore, if they are caught storing data in a pattern, say 100 people catch them within a year of the first, the fine retroactively becomes $1000 per incident over the time of the pattern. With a Judge having discretion to raise fines, retroactively and inclusive of new violations, for companies that simply refuse to comply. I feel like this could work. In fact, I would think most companies would start designing their systems to ensure they didn't violate by accident. Which is what they are supposed to be doing, but not.

dataflow 3y ago
> but let's strong man this instead of finding reasons not to consider it. Why though? You need to give a good motivation for avoiding the obvious and direct solutions in the first place before anyone sees any reason to go through the effort of strongmanning an alternative. If I was proposing a $50 fine as the penalty for random people caught squatting in your house would you be interested in strawmanning it just because it makes for fun argumentation? I sure wouldn't. And anyway, I already commented on the merits of this idea in my earlier comments: you're not at all considering the fact that $100 (or even $1000 or more) might be well worth it for certain people's information. It just might not be the entire population, is all. You're just picking winners and losers with this approach, on both sides, is all.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  Nobody is likely to catch corporations obtaining or holding information on just a few people they have some special interest in. They wouldn't even have to store that info in their regular systems. But making it unsustainable for them to make a habit of it, which is something that impacts millions of people, is possible, with escalating fines. Also, it doesn't make sense to say a business will just take fines as a cost of business, without taking the size of fines into account. Clearly there is a number that they will respond to, because that is what they do. Respond to hard currency numbers in whatever objective way will let them maximize what they keep.