[erik_seaberg]

> as long as you do your best to stop the bad thing, limit the breach, notify users, and be a good steward for their data, then it's all good

If that regulator happens to like you. There is no schedule of offenses and penalties and due process, only an absurdly high maximum for selective enforcement.

[jib]

And there are a lot of regulators. Some of them a lot more combative than others. That is my main reason for dislike for the regulations.

Overall I support the regulations, but I really wish the penalties had more documented structure than “We will fine you anywhere from 0 to an 8 digit number (in our case) depending on what we think is right”.

[afiori]

The negative outcome of more specific fines is that they get progressively easier to circumvent.

[anoncake]

There is due process. If you think a regulator's decision was illegal, you can escalate to the courts. Some member states may not have the best justice system, but that's what the ECJ is for.

There is no explicit schedule – that could be gamed – but that doesn't mean regulators can act arbitrarily. Punishments have to be proportional to the infraction, similar cases have to be treated similarly... The GDPR just does not spell out how public authorities work.

It actually does say that punishments have to be proportional IIRC. I'm not sure if that actually makes a legal difference or if it was included to make the GDPR easier to understand.

[Mirioron]

And you pay for the lawsuit out of your own pocket. Now you need to run a business and fight a very expensive legal battle against the government. That same government that regulates your business.

[anoncake]

>And you pay for the lawsuit out of your own pocket.

Only if you lose.

> very expensive legal battle

EU ≠ USA

>That same government that regulates your business.

So what? If you have a grievance with an entity, that's the entity you have to fight a lawsuit against.

[Mirioron]

Are you sure you only pay if you lose?

>EU ≠ USA

I don't see why this changes anything. Lawyers still cost a lot of money. They might not seem like they cost a lot of money to Americans, but that's because Americans earn a lot more money.

>So what? If you have a grievance with an entity, that's the entity you have to fight a lawsuit against.

One of the grievances people have against GDPR is that they don't like how GDPR's enforcement depends so much on the individual person at DPAs. You'll still have to deal with the person afterwards that you sued.

[anoncake]

> Are you sure you only pay if you lose?

Yes. Each party paying their own fees is a uniquely American thing.

> I don't see why this changes anything. Lawyers still cost a lot of money.

Prohibitively high lawyer fees are a uniquely American thing. The ECHR guarantees practical and effective access to the courts.

> One of the grievances people have against GDPR is that they don't like how GDPR's enforcement depends so much on the individual person at DPAs. You'll still have to deal with the person afterwards that you sued.

That Americans have against the GDPR. Given that the people who actually have experience with European authorities and law don't see these issues, it's very likely they don't exist.

You don't necessarily have to deal with the same person. Even if a DPA always assigns the same person to you, there is no oversight, that person is petty and cares more about harming you than about their job: We have rule of law and a functioning court system. And I can't help but find these continuing insinuations that we don't pretty insulting.