zlacker

> maximum of one year or more

If the max is one year, it can't be more?

>>ryankr+(OP)
The maximum value in each instance must be at least one year.

>>ryankr+(OP)
It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year".

At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.

>>rkomor+c
This is correct. But the larger point is that even 1 minute of jail time for such "crimes" is unacceptable.

>>rkomor+c
So it’s a minimum maximum.

>>H8cril+4m
That larger point deserves its own thread. My newest pet peeve is someone jumping into the middle of a conversation with the equivalent of "I don't care about what you're talking about. What I want to talk about is more important".

Oh look, now you've got me doing it to you. Drat.

>>H8cril+4m
This is correct. But the larger point is that even though you can put pineapple on a pizza, you still shouldn't.

>>zdragn+7t
Welcome to Internet Comments.

>>the_gi+4R
The larger point is that being within a community is quite important, whether you realize it or not.

>>rkomor+c
How would you have read it if it said "with a maximum of one year"?

>>H8cril+4m
You might not like this law (and I'm agnostic on it) but I think the principle that individuals should be held accountable when laws are broken is important. Otherwise we just have token fines and corporate non-compliance because the risks don't outweigh the potential financial benefits.

I think people at Experian should have gone to jail, for example, for their incompetence and negligence in regards data breaches.

>>ameliu+Vb1
Not sure what exact sentence you're thinking of, but I'd have read the same sentence without "or more" to mean "each member's law should have a max sentence be 1 year" (since the context is describing what each member's law should look like).

>>bigfud+cc1
Which people? The responsibility is distributed across hundreds, the decisions that led to the breach were made by committees, etc.

>>NoMore+0v1
The person nominated by that company as their age verification guardian? Or the CEO. Or both. The defence for either could be that they took reasonable steps to know what was going on in their companies or were actively mislead.

This isn’t complicated. If it’s the law companies should comply. Fines won’t make a difference to corporate behaviour but this Might.

>>bigfud+yW2
I think that person's title is Designated Patsy. If your idea of justice is them finding someone who's willing to gamble that they won't be called out before their term is up in return for fat paychecks until it happens or they can "move on", I don't think we have compatible senses of justice.

>This isn’t complicated.

Not only is it complicated, it is deliberately complicated expressly for the purpose of making it impossible for justice to occur.