[pewdiepotpie]

I agree with you, I would also suggest, fines are a niggling mentality. A non serially compliant like google should have its financial holdings [all of them] taken into receivership, and appropriately docked until they comply or liquidate and cease operations. now there are some big pointy nasty teeth to have sink in to the bone

[_bxg1]

Revenue is the reward mechanism of capitalism; fines are great as long as they're big enough. I think the percentage route is the way to go.

Corporations make all their decisions based on risk/cost/reward; if it costs X to respect people's privacy, and it costs Y (via fines) to not respect people's privacy, you just have to balance that equation. Shareholders will do the rest.

[pewdiepotpie]

yes revenue is the reward, however when a big bad kid uses his toys to assault anyone else in the sandbox we take those things away. the fines being levied are no where near enough to be punitive, and can be simply shrugged off as a cost of operation. If googles executive was relieved of thier positions even temporarily by a court appointed 3rd party for the purpose of remaking google in a compliant form, the problem would end dead stop.

[_bxg1]

"can be simply shrugged off as a cost of operation"

You clearly didn't read my last message very closely. The whole idea is that the fine needs to change the economics so that it's no longer a good business decision. A business is going to pick the path of least "cost of operation", so you make sure that those forces push it in the direction that's best for society.

[pewdiepotpie]

you clearly underestimate the revenue of google. 57 million dollars is something google can shrug off as a cost of operation, attack the strongest point not the weakest point, and not the poster please review the HN guidelines.