[torgard]

Companies could be held liable for gross misconduct. Although GDPR is not exactly a shining example of IT regulation, I think it's a good example of liability.

Companies get fined for breaking GDPR.

Governmental projects should have similar requirements in place, and companies and people should be held accountable for breaking them.

[a1369209993]

> Companies get fined for breaking GDPR.

Well, no, they don't, or least when they do it's only pittance fines. Google, Facebook, et al are not bankrupt.

[torgard]

Here's a website tracking GDPR enforcement: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

According to that website, one of Google's 10 fines is the highest fine ever, at €50 million. Hilariously, in a dystopian kind of way, they were fined €28 last year. Not as in millions, but twenty-eight euros.

Facebook only appears on the list once, with a paltry €51,000.

But in any case, the point of GDPR is not to bankrupt companies.

[CogitoCogito]

> But in any case, the point of GDPR is not to bankrupt companies.

It _should_ be.

Well okay that's a bit hyperbolic, but what I mean by that is that the point should be to _change_ behavior and if the fines necessary or the resulting change in business model leads to bankruptcy then that should be totally fine. Companies who cannot operate legally shouldn't continue operating.

[a1369209993]

> the highest fine ever, at €50 million

Which would a substansive (or even excessive) fine for a typical individual person or small business. For a multi-billion-dollar corporation, it's a operating expense.

> the point of GDPR is not to bankrupt companies.

The point of fines is to be too large to be operating expenses.

[Goety]

I've stopped caring about GDPR given its lax enforcement and recent power grabs by european parliament. They had their chance to prove they were going to 'clean' their space and give people trust in their actions. If they truly believed in their model I think they would have tried a bit harder. In my opinion they have already failed to gain the trust of their citizens.

I hate to say it but I think the Chinese model with 'nationalization' of the internet and IT services has already won and we're in denial. Regional governments, "federations" are likely to continue to reduce global trade through regional nationalization and IT programs.

[rocqua]

Which power grabs by EU parliament? It is actually exceptionally powerless. Were you referring to the conflict between the EU and Poland or Hungary?

[Goety]

The EU had decided to expand their mandate into the tech sphere with regulation already proven not to work as intended/stated.

The EU mandate should not include policing of private speech through tangential monitoring services. Some wealthy European countries themselves have rather restrictive laws and approaches to private thought and through recent laws will have access to this information. The EU (non-democratic European commission with little legislation transparency) will likely to continue to grasp for more power as their competition of thought becomes more mimicry of foreign models of power than actual ingenuity.

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chatcontrol-european-parlia...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27753727