cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52834195
“If adopted, these amendments would not simplify compliance but hollow out the GDPR’s and ePrivacy’s core guarantees: purpose limitation, accountability, and independent oversight,” Itxaso Dominguez de Olazabal, from the European Digital Rights group, told EUobserver.
The draft includes adjustments to what is considered “personal data,” a key component of the GDPR and protected by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Doesn’t seem terribly surprising to me, the existing rules make it very hard to make use of data for AI training in the EU. Other parts of the world have looser restrictions and they’re developing AI like gangbusters as a result. The EU needed to either loosen up too or accept this entire sector of information tech being foreign-controlled, which would have its own major privacy and security problems.
As if the GDPR was a barrier to IP theft
Did you read the article? It says that making AI training easier is a key purpose of these changes.
And my point was they’re already doing this in the face of regulation.
Sounds like the problem is lack of enforcement of the existing laws rather than the existing laws being bad.
To provide an extreme example, just because there’s a wave of murders doesn’t mean murder should be made legal.
Then why change the rules? The article’s author seems quite convinced that this will make AI training easier.
Because they want to strip the right to privacy so they can better monetize
Naive to think the GDPR is stopping anyone now.
So again, why change the rules? If the GDPR is already ineffective there’s no need to loosen it more.
Are you asking me why some in Europe want to make it legal? Because they’re already doing it, just they want to make it legal
Make sense?
If they’re already doing it then no change is necessary. So why change it?
If making it legal makes it easier for them to do, then that was my original point. That’s why I think they’re making the change.
Why should any of us approve of making things easier for technofascists?
Did I say you should approve of it? I’m just explaining why it comes as no surprise to me.
You’re not going to beat the Americans at their own game. It’s a society that does not respect the rule of law, does not believe in true market competition and does not believe in democracy.
If you think I am acting out, consider the following point: recently Meta was found to have directly (in a premeditated manner) promoted scams/frauds that netted them $16B in commission in a single year. We all know that nothing will be done about this even under a hypothetical centre-right US government.
How do we know that? Well was anything done about Microsoft’s anti-competitive behaviour in the 90s?
But for me, the real irony is the polemics about competition and “free market”. In a real free market, MS, Meta, Google would not have hundreds of billions of dollar to burn because competition would drive profit margins to a state of approaching zero. Zuck would not be able to burn $45 B on his weird and disgusting Metaverse Mii autosexuality fetish.
Not a fan of the leadership of China, but I genuinely do believe that one area that we can learn from them is how to deal with oligarchs.
How do we deal with oligarchs including Xi?
Xi is not an oligarch, to my knowledge, he has always worked in the CCP.
I thought he was a rich ruler interested in extending his lifespan
Sure, but he is not an oligarch.
How so? I thought the definition is member of a group of wealthy individuals wielding sovereign power. Which he seems to meet fine, unless he’s the only wealthy individual in the ccp
This doesn’t seem right. Russian oligarchs do not wield sovereign power, yet they are still oligarchs.
They wield power, but the term sovereign doesn’t seem appropriate.
The guy explained the rational he didn’t say it was his personal view that it should be done.
And even if was his view we shouldn’t be down voting things based on whether you agree or not. We should do it on whether it adds to the discussion.
The quality of discourse on lemmy is fucking dire.
Amen. A large fraction of the people on lemmy lack empathy and the ability to consider other viewpoints in general. Very anti-social, close minded crowd.
I do have to give kudos to the mods here, though. Even though my comment was extremely unpopular they’ve removed the responses to it where people were outright insulting me for making it.
Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval. On a subject such as this - "reduce your privacy for the benefit of AI companies that are some number of:
If I stopped my comment there I’d get voted on based on my explanation of what just happened assuming I was pro-this process because that’s human nature (or maybe it’s a byproduct of modern media discourse where they ask questions but don’t answer them and expect you to fill in the blanks (look at most of conservative media when it’s dog whistling or talking about data around crime or what have you)).
I don’t think someone should be voted into the ground for explaining something, but I also think every online comment should do it’s best to make a stand on the core subject they’re discussing. We are in dire times and being a bystander let’s evil people win.
So practicing what I’m preaching: Privacy laws should absolutely not be reduced for the benefit of AI companies. We should create regulations and safety rails around AI companies so they practice ethically and safely, which won’t happen in the US.
Do some people’s brains really work like that? I prefer it when people simply describe a problem, instead of making it all tribal and mixing reality with opinion!
I mean, I like when I ask someone to explain a problem and then do. I don’t personally like it when someone explains a problem that’s pretty obvious.
My point is the original commenter, by explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation. Actually, on second read it’s far more explicit - they’re defending why the change was made, not just explaining what happened. The downvotes were warranted (if you use downvotes as “this is a bad opinion, perspective, or contribution” which is debatably not their purpose).
But the reality is even in describing a problem you’re coloring reality with your perspective. There are facts, things everyone can agree on, but in describing those things you color them. It doesn’t have to be tribal to push back on someone coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).
I understood that point of view. I just don’t agree, at all! I prefer factual conversation, describing the dilemma. OP demonstrated that they understand that the problem has multiple tradeoffs.
The original commenter didn’t do that? They described the tradeoff.
I think you prefer tribal, coloured conversation. To the point where if it doesn’t match your preferred colour, you very quickly and incorrectly assume people are anti your colour?
“The EU needed to either loosen up too or accept this entire sector of information tech being foreign-controlled, which would have its own major privacy and security problems.”
This is the original commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws. This is not factual, this is not an objective truth, this is one person’s perspective about why the EU is doing what they’re doing and in a way that defends their position.
If they had said, “Maybe the EU felt the need to… In fear of this entire sector…” That would have revealed that statement to be a less objective, more theoretical opinion - which is what it is. But they didn’t. They wrote it as a fact, defending their decision as if A) that was true B) that was the reason instead of a handful of reasons C) it was the only path forward.
I think if you’re reading that statement by the original commenter in any other way, we’re at least misaligned on what they’re saying. I would argue that statement plainly reads as defending their actions by guessing (even if reasonable or intelligently) as to their motives.
I think you’re throwing around tribal like a buzzword you recently became aware of. I like people having opinions on random comment based forums online. I don’t like when people don’t add to the conversation and yet comment anyway, allowing for wasteful conversations like this to take place. The original commenter explained a thing no one asked to be explained at best and defended a perspective that I think is objectively short sighted at worst. I have no problem with the first and I don’t like the second but also am happy to talk to people who hold those opinions if they’re looking for a safe place to discuss and debate them.
Now that’s a couple ways of interpretting what the original commenter said, both of which I think are justifiable although I lean obviously to one way. Does that read like I’m simplifying the problem reductively? Does that read like I’m asking people to throw stones at the commenter? Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?
I would say no, obviously not. You seem frustrated at online discourse, or maybe you’re just pro-these-actions and can’t separate them from this conversation. You wanna talk about the actions of the EU, that’s cool. You wanna talk about one random person’s perspective as to why the original commenter got downvotes, that’s cool. You want to acuse me of being simple, when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote (both the first commenter and the person I responded to), that seems like a waste of time. It’s surely not adding anything to the conversation for me at least.
But here we are.
Not justifying why, explaining why. I was giving the reason why I think they’re doing this.
Lots of people hate that it’s being done, so any reasoning behind it is being interpreted as support for it. But I’m not in the EU, I have no skin in this game at all one way or the other, it doesn’t matter to me whether this change is made. I’m just pointing out why I wasn’t surprised this change was made. The GDPR is hindering AI training and AI is a really big thing right now. The AI training stuff wasn’t mentioned in the summary so my mention in the comments is presenting something that other readers might not be aware of.
The response has frankly been ridiculous. I didn’t include the obligatory “oooh, I hate AI so much!” Flags in my comment, and so this has turned into a huge waste of time as everyone piles on about that rather than about the actual changes to the GDPR the thread was supposedly about.
Yeah, the downvote button isn’t even being used as an “I disagree with this” button in this case, it’s an “I hate the general concept this comment is about” button. And now you’re getting downvoted too for pointing that out.
Guess I should have just said “boy howdy do I ever hate AI, good thing it’s a bubble and everything will go right back to the way things were when it pops” and raked in the upvotes instead.