Fines can be appealed, so it's not so much of a slippery slope.

Not when they err on the side of making them too low.

Then you get the problem of (hypothetically) “Yeah, BMW compromised everyone’s information ... but we took into account how much our country/state depends on them and gave a slap on the wrist.”

Like the VW case.

Edit: or does the EU allow third parties to sue over too-low fines? That would be a surprise.

Agree. Fucking bury bad actors. What we've been doing hasn't worked.

Well consider it a slap on the fingers with probably a follow up with potentially greater implications?

Arguments that are presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It's not a slippery slope.

False in one thing, false in all things.

See I can do it too.

You can't just say "it's a slippery slope" without any evidence or context.

That's not even a statement. Slippery slope to what end? By refusing to spell it out you can claim any interpretation that results in absurdity is a strawman.

"It's a slippery slope" is literally a bullshit statement. It's vague enough to express disapproval without really presenting any argument other than "just don't" yet it has the appearance of sophistication.

Either make an argument or just say you disapprove. Being vaguely ominous doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Here, I'll give you a start: "I think leaving such a wide range to a board's decision is dangerous because...".