[thanosnose]

> Anyone bashing the GDPR for being too hostile towards startups and smaller businesses should read this. Looks like the fine was almost a bit too low in this case...

You make it seem like that's supposed to be assuring? Essentially, small companies and startups are left to the whims of bunch of bureaucrats.

The fact that they have to make the fine "almost a bit too low" just shows you what a terrible thing GDPR is.

[Angostura]

> Essentially, small companies and startups that break the law are left to the whims of bunch of bureaucrats.

Fixed that for you. There's a way for small companies to avoid this - take your user's data security at least slightly seriously

[dvdgsng]

> small companies and startups are left to the whims of bunch of bureaucrats

... and they might even have to comply to other laws, too. god forbid. why can't they just make a quick buck without anyone bothering them? ...

[dwild]

The things is, laws aren't whims.

Law shouldn't be applied based on the opinion of some bureaucrats. That's how you get a tiny fine for a big multinational because "they are responsible for too many jobs" or the classical one "their lobby pay me well enough" while the tiny startup get a too big for them fine because, who cares.

Can't we both agree that this fine is WAY too small? Can we both agree that this fine would be WAY too big if it was for a tiny website with a few hundred users?

The idea behind GDPR is amazing, I agree with the concept. What I disagree with is the execution and that fine is the proof that it's pretty badly done.

[dvdgsng]

yes, i agree with both of your statements. :) As far as i understood (correct me if i'm wrong pls) the GDPR fines apply to each single violation and depends on the severity of the violation, so having a big range makes kind of sense, IMHO. I don't know if that applies to this case, though.