[peoplewindow]

Point is that the UK government already has a tax regime. It has no incentive to fine Facebook so much there's a risk of it leaving. The ICO already said that it doesn't intend to use its big new fining powers under GDPR anyway, as there's no need.

The rest of the EU is a bigger question. The EU is desperate for cash. It faces a huge budget shortfall, member states that don't want to pay more and it can't raise a corporation tax itself by treaty. Repeatedly fining tech firms looks like a nice way out for them.

But that said, hopefully the UK will repeal GDPR eventually along with associated EU nonsense like the cookie law.

[jimnotgym]

> Point is that the UK government already has a tax regime. It has no incentive to fine Facebook so much there's a risk of it leaving.

Do Facebook have a presence in the UK? I thought they were headquartered in Dublin? Do Facebook pay tax in the UK? News to me.

> The ICO already said that it doesn't intend to use its big new fining powers under GDPR anyway, as there's no need.

Citation very much needed. The ICO will follow the law. The ICO is using it's DPA powers already. The

> The EU is desperate for cash

The EU organisation is handing rebates back to members at the moment...The UK just got one. Or perhaps you mean countries in the EU. Germany has a budget surplus, so I don't know what you could mean? you sound bitter?

> But that said, hopefully the UK will repeal GDPR eventually a

It seems extremely unlikely that the UK wont retain 'regulatory alignment'. This is actually part of the agreement over NI border? This will also be a prerequisite for a trade deal, and the UK will cintinue to make CE marked goods or they would not be able to sell them

> long with associated EU nonsense like the cookie law.

The EU is already on this one[0] What other 'nonsense' consumer protection law do you want undone?

[0]https://www.carpedatumlaw.com/2017/01/goodbye-cookie-banners...

[DanBC]

> > The ICO already said that it doesn't intend to use its big new fining powers under GDPR anyway, as there's no need.

> Citation very much needed. The ICO will follow the law. The ICO is using it's DPA powers already

You can see how few people ICO impose fines on already, and that they have never imposed the maximum fine.

UK regulators really do take a light touch approach, aiming to get companies to change behaviour.

[jimnotgym]

> You can see how few people ICO impose fines on already, and that they have never imposed the maximum fine

Why would they have to impose the maximum to be effective?

The maximum sentence for arson in the UK is life imprisonment, something you are unlikely to see imposed. That doesn't mean that everybody is going to start torching their houses for the insurance.

> UK regulators really do take a light touch approach, aiming to get companies to change behaviour.

Maybe the German ones did too, but Facebook chose to ignore them?

Here is a recent DPA case against a non US company btw[0].

[0]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42637820

[stordoff]

> The maximum sentence for arson in the UK is life imprisonment, something you are unlikely to see imposed. That doesn't mean that everybody is going to start torching their houses for the insurance.

And if you did see that, I suspect you'd start seeing that maximum imposed more - there's no reason why the ICO wouldn't do the same if lower fines were ineffective.