4 ms·

Once you reach a certain level of wealth, fines are no longer consequential. When you can restructure both your corporate and personal assets to span multiple c

Once you reach a certain level of wealth, fines are no longer consequential. When you can restructure both your corporate and personal assets to span multiple countries with different regulations and poor cooperation, you've effective avoided them.

hiq 3y ago
What about the 4% of the global turnover of a company as mentioned in https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/?
- anticorporate 3y ago
  If it were effective, we wouldn't all endure daily GDPR violations. But we do.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    Non-enforcement is a different issue to fines being too low.
    - anticorporate 3y ago
      They're related, though. A portion of fines fund enforcement activity. (IMHO, a higher portion should go to enforcement. Right now way too much goes into general funds.)
Chris2048 3y ago
> fines are no longer consequential I don't see how this can possibly be true. Any corp has finite money, and operating costs; If the fines are high enough, they will be consequential. > to span multiple countries you can't really evade US fines/sanction and continue to operate in the west.
- coderenegade 3y ago
  No government is going to fine Amazon or Google enough to break the company. It would displace thousands of workers, and have a serious impact on the local economy where those companies are based, if not the whole country. If the fine is large enough to have a material impact, it's the rank and file who are laid off as the company restructures, and the company then uses tricks like tax offsets to pull through from a loss of profit. This is before considering political ramifications, e.g. it's in the US' best interests to have the largest tech companies, and clipping their wings too much would cede ground to foreign competitors. At the end of the day, the C-suite either know that the law is being broken, or they don't. One makes them responsible, and the other makes them criminally negligent. I absolutely believe that C-suite executives of VW, for example, should have been thrown in jail for diesel-gate. Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Similarly, if you're presiding over a company, and your company is breaking the law, plausible deniability shouldn't be a defense. If you're getting paid to run the company, you are responsible.

hiq 3y ago

What about the 4% of the global turnover of a company as mentioned in https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/?

anticorporate 3y ago
If it were effective, we wouldn't all endure daily GDPR violations. But we do.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  Non-enforcement is a different issue to fines being too low.
  - anticorporate 3y ago
    They're related, though. A portion of fines fund enforcement activity. (IMHO, a higher portion should go to enforcement. Right now way too much goes into general funds.)

Chris2048 3y ago

> fines are no longer consequential I don't see how this can possibly be true. Any corp has finite money, and operating costs; If the fines are high enough, they will be consequential. > to span multiple countries you can't really evade US fines/sanction and continue to operate in the west.

coderenegade 3y ago
No government is going to fine Amazon or Google enough to break the company. It would displace thousands of workers, and have a serious impact on the local economy where those companies are based, if not the whole country. If the fine is large enough to have a material impact, it's the rank and file who are laid off as the company restructures, and the company then uses tricks like tax offsets to pull through from a loss of profit. This is before considering political ramifications, e.g. it's in the US' best interests to have the largest tech companies, and clipping their wings too much would cede ground to foreign competitors. At the end of the day, the C-suite either know that the law is being broken, or they don't. One makes them responsible, and the other makes them criminally negligent. I absolutely believe that C-suite executives of VW, for example, should have been thrown in jail for diesel-gate. Not knowing the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Similarly, if you're presiding over a company, and your company is breaking the law, plausible deniability shouldn't be a defense. If you're getting paid to run the company, you are responsible.