they have no fear of the current financial incentives, there has to a punitive quantity involved, and the mentality of any regulators has to catch up with present day.
fines that amount to a daily expenditure account, do nothing. fines have to have potential to do real damage to, or destroy noncompliants, if there is going to be any deterrent.
contempt, is obvious, the chance of jail should exist in actuality, rather than a vague possibility.
> fines that amount to a daily expenditure account, do nothing.
Even those relatively small fines rarely get paid. Companies can tie up the judgements in the courts for years without having to pay a single cent. [1]
> The Data Protection Commission (DPC) is owed more than €4 billion in fines that have not been collected or are subject to legal challenge. The DPC hit companies – including firms in Big Tech – with more than €530 million in fines last year. However, just €125,000 of that has been collected so far, according to data released under FOI laws. Over the past six years, the commission has levied an incredible €4.04 billion in fines, mostly on multinational technology companies. However, of that total, €4.02 billion remains uncollected and just €20 million has been paid in fines so far. In 2024, €652 million worth of fines was levied, of which €582,500 has been paid.
Hopefully they hold off until the financial straw breaks and then they leverage their owed fines to claim ownership of these shithole companies completely.
If you read the report this is why I say network traffic with a Sec-GPC: 1 (GPC opt-out) should return a 451 automatically instead of a cookie, and how the Meta Pixel code can wrap a GPC conditional around execution. That's why they are terrified - fines don't matter, code does.
yes that seems to be workable, but then its thier code, and house techs you have to preempt. the problem seems to be one of, effectively compelling a change of code and heuristics.
im wondering what would be more effective.
1] desist or existentially threatening fines, or indentureship will occur.
2] you have a problem with code maintainence, we will take code maintainence into receivership, until you have demonstrated that you can maintain code in a legal framework.
That's a terrible idea though. It means that anyone who selects the "Do not track me" option will find that they can't access the content at all, which will quickly train users to never select "Do not track me".
Instead of fines someone here recommended partial public ownership. This also dilutes share value so punishes the people who can effect change, stock holders. It would also give the government a better ability to hold companies accountable as the government is now on the inside and can make partial owner type demands, request internal numbers. It could also add significant other burdens. An egregious company would become publicly owned over time allowing a complete overhaul.
fines that amount to a daily expenditure account, do nothing. fines have to have potential to do real damage to, or destroy noncompliants, if there is going to be any deterrent.
contempt, is obvious, the chance of jail should exist in actuality, rather than a vague possibility.