I’m not sure what that has to do with this discussion. We are discussing whether or not GDPR requires warnings before fines are allowed to be issued. The answer is no, it does not require them, and the text you linked to does not disprove this simple, undeniable fact.
Incorrect. You're moving the goal posts. Let's stay on the topic-at-hand, yeah?
The OC comment was:
>I expect there would have been a warning given in that case before assessing a fine.
To which your initial retort was:
>What makes you expect this? Unless you and I have read entirely different versions of GDPR, no provision of GDPR requires any warning of any kind prior to issuing fines.
When you started receiving the downvote storm is when you challeneged for proof that the GDPR requires warnings.
I gave a response that supports the OC's position, that a warning could and would be expected; not because of requirement but because it is up to the discretion of the supervisory authority.
After all, the initial challenge that was given to the OC was, "What makes you expect this?" was it not?
Now, it's your turn to disprove that a warning would be expected. I'll wait...
One cannot expect a warning if a warning isn’t required. You may hope to get a warning, but unless it is required you should not expect it. There are numerous cases listed on the website we are discussing where, in fact, no warning was issued. Had those individuals/companies read the comments in this thread prior to receiving fines, they would have been wondering why they received no warning, since everyone claims they should “expect” their self-appointed, benevolent, data overlords to give them a warning first. Unfortunately for them, all of you are incorrect that they should “expect” to receive warnings. Why? Because they are not required, and not only that, warnings don’t even appear to be the norm.
