[Rockslide]

Except that of course it wasn't about "using Cc instead of Bcc in emails" but using CC instead of BCC in mailing lists with hundreds of recipients and also not about "using a dashcam" but using a dashcam illegally, which in itself can imply a much higher fine in some European countries regardless of GDPR. So not as benign as you are trying to make it sound.

[muro]

I honestly don't see how "using a dashcam illegally" is such a big deal, nor how "hundreds of recipients" on an email are a big deal. The email list seemed to be just rants.

I wish they would tell what the harm of both of those actually was.

[detaro]

Traffic tickets don't require harm to be actually done either. It's potentially the same kind of thing, at least for the dashcam case.

[muro]

But shouldn't the fine then be using the dashcam law and not GDPR?

[detaro]

The analogy was that GDPR fines, similar to other administrative fines (which was the term that had escaped me) like traffic tickets, do not require damage to be shown (although it plays a role in setting the amount of the fine) - unlike e.g. cases pressing for damages, brought by a wronged party, would be.

The law regarding dash cams (if there is an explicit one, I don't know enough about the situation in Austria) might just declare it a privacy violation, and thus defer to the enforcement mechanisms created by GDPR.

[muro]

Yes, makes sense. I think it case of Austria, there are fines specified for dashcams, so it's interesting they decided to use the GDPR instead.