| ▲ | Teever a day ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If the cost of penalties doesn't exceed the cost of the offence then it's a winning move to offend. The correct solution to this is to have fines scaled to the value of a company and an exponential doubling of fines for every re-offence that falls under the same category of crime with a cooling off period after a few years. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | benoau a day ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The fines do scale with noncompliance, if Google were to continue to offend they would get a daily fine that is retroactively applied to the full duration. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | maccard a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Because the goal isn’t to punish, it’s to get them to do what the law wants them to do. The fine is supposed to be a slap on the wrist - the actual desired behaviour is compliance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||