Hacker News Reader

I see this is based on a Spiegel article. Can someone link to the full ruling? One thing I am curious about is how the number was derived.

Regardless, even if you disagree with the scope of the law (which I do but not the intent of course), it is a very welcoming sign to see some actual enforcement happening. An under/subjectively enforced law of this size is much worse than a reasonably enforced one.

View on HN

Here's the Data Protection Officer's press release (in German): https://www.baden-wuerttemberg.datenschutz.de/lfdi-baden-wue... - the relevant paragraph is towards the end. The tl;dr is that the fine is rather low because they were very cooperative and quick to follow suggestions for improvement, and have additional improvements planned. Also, they likely couldn't afford more, and the goal of GDPR fines is not only to be effective and a deterrent, but also proportionate. The DPO says that including the cost of IT security measures taken and planned, the total expense for Knuddels is a six-digit figure.

I think the cost of complying with the law is just cost of conducting a business lawfully. So, those parts should not be spoken of as if they were part of the damages.

Well obviously they should have improved their security practices years ago. Nonetheless, they incurred the costs now, as a result of self-reporting a data breach (which is mandatory). That's the number that's relevant as a deterrent for others, so I think it's fine to report it this way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com