cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52834195

https://archive.is/je5sj

“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.

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    The commission pitched the Digital Omnibus as simplifying and streamlining digital regulations to relieve the regulatory burden for digital services and AI systems, with a specific focus on helping small-to medium-sized businesses in Europe; however, the draft proposal goes further than expected.

    won’t somebody think of the poor “AI” companies? 😢

    • 87Six@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      28 days ago

      Helping small to medium-sized businesses in Europe

      Yyeeaa as if these small companies are the ones that yelled in favor of this. The lady at my local grocery shop always told me how it would be easier for her to do her job if this change in GDPR made it through…

    • deathbird@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      29 days ago

      My grandpappy started this here AI company with a handful of GPUs he whittled himself, and I’ll be damned if I’m gonna let big gobmint regulations cost us the family business!

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      I think the point is that the EU isn’t participating in the software industry, including AI, at all.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    Looks like somebody has been promised by one or more large Tech firms a very highly paid non-executive board membership, millionaire speech circuit engagement or gold plated “consulting” gig when their time in the Commission is over…

    Mind you, by now that kind of exchange of “favours” is tradition for the members of the EU Commission.

    • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      Humanity really can’t progress anywhere with capitalism running so rampant. Every corpo needs to go, or it will be like trying to sail against the wind.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        28 days ago

        Humanity is progressing all the time one way or another. Also corporation is a word with far wider meaning than often used, a university is a corporation, a security service is a corporation, a military is a corporation with plenty of subcorporations with their own esprit de corps, and even a network of friends playing DND is a corporation, not even talking about religious sects.

        And all these corporations function, in regards to cronyism and and quid-pro-quo and silent erosion of mechanisms aimed at transparency and resilience, in absolutely the same way.

        So - even in this interpretation there were people agreeing with you, which are now called “not proper communism”, who have ruined all the corporations they could find, have built their own one corporation aimed at first taking power and then fixing the world, it has diverged in a few directions, fostering under their umbrella a few other corporations along the way, and in the end result the territories which those people controlled are still pretty corporate. Except with very peculiar backbones of their organized crime, with traits of a religious sect, which can be traced back to those revolutionaries. There are even a few secret services which have been abolished or merged into other secret services, but in fact still function and their members elect their leaders. It’s scary, ironic, even beautiful, and honestly I respect those people who can keep a tradition even if membership in their structure has nothing to do with money and power anymore.

        But you should notice how when trying to build a social mechanism to impose your will upon the world, like, for example, to kill all corporations, you are building a corporation.

        I’ve used more words than needed to say this.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        29 days ago

        True.

        That is however a pretty hard and time consuming change, so to me it makes sense that in the meanwhile we take steps to reduce the harm caused by the system still in place, not least by cracking down hard on Corruption and Conflicts Of Interest and closing the legal loopholes that allow certain politicians to stay within the Law whilst purposefully using today the power they have been delegated to do favors for others who have promised them monetary payback for it tomorrow.

        If you’re drowning now you don’t put all your hopes on the ship that might be coming but isn’t even visible yet.

      • architect@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 days ago

        You’re right. We are past capitalism at this point imo, though. They don’t need employees at all to extract “value” from the rest of us. They are like digital kings. We pay them to be on their lands. You should see the amount of money they extract from some of us just to be allowed to play. I pay them more than all of my bills combined to be allowed eyes in their digital fiefdom.

        Do it or starve. That is the reality for a lot of us. Maybe not you, yet. (If you’re lucky enough to have a job that doesn’t need the internet)

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        Legally there are no Corrupt EU Commissioners. To be deemed Corrupt there would have to be actual evidence of Corruption (such as recordings of meetings were they explicitly promised to use their power in a certain way, in exchange for some form of payment, which normally only the Police has powers to obtain), them being subsequently charged and a Court Of Law convicting them for the crime of Corruption.

        None of them was ever just investigated for Corruption, much less convicted so pointing fingers at any one of the them explicitly and saying that they’re Corrupt would be Libel, which in my country (which by the way, is pretty Corrupt, with actual ex-government members convicted of Corruption) is an actual Crime prosecuted by the local Prosecution Office, not merely a civil lawsuit for damages.

        So if I was to name names, I would be putting my head of the block for the Crime of Libel. Obviously I’m not going to do that.

        What there is are various coincidences of EU Commissioners which acted in very positive ways towards certain industries and then after leaving the Commission went to work for those Industries making a lot of money, even thought they had no background in them (never before had worked in said Industries, no Educational training for said Industries).

        Since the police never investigates it, all there are are such coincidences of commissioners ending up in gold plated gigs in the industries they helped whilst they were commissioners.

        I’m not going to put my head of the nose for you by naming names (I’m not a Legal expert so don’t want to risk committing the Crime of Libel by doing so). I suggest you start by looking into were the EU commissioners during the 2008 Crash (during which the commission was very pro-Finance) ended up working afterwards.

        • ptu@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          28 days ago

          I didn’t ask for ”corrupt comissioners”, but those who have moved from comission to those positions. There is nothing illegal in pointing those out.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            Well, for merely commissioners that moved from the commission to those positions, the first example that comes to my mind is the head of the EU Commission during the 2008 Crash and it’s aftermath, who went to Goldman Sachs afterwards and is still there today as a non-executive president.

            During his time in the Commission they were very pro-Finance in the way they handled the aftermath of the Crash with him personally pushing frequently for measures were EU money was used to unconditionally helped the interests of large Financial Industry companies, and Goldman Sachs is one of the largest companies and massively benefited from, amongst other things, near-defaulting Greek Treasuries being bought from the private sector by the EU, which subsequently forced the Greeks into Austerity to as much as possible pay those Treasuries.

            There’s even a scandal with him were, whilst working at Goldman Sachs, he broke the EU rules on lobbying by using his access card to EU buildings - which he was entitled to have as an ex-Head of the Commission - to simply enter into those buildings and waltz over to the offices of sitting EU officials to lobby for Goldman Sachs. The EU ended up revoking his access privileges, the first and only time that has happened for an ex-EU Commissioner.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          28 days ago

          So if I was to name names, I would be putting my head of the block for the Crime of Libel.

          “Hello I’m an anonymous person on the Internet and if I say anyone’s name I will literally be murdered, so you just need to Do Your Own Research”

          • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            I personally know a person who was charged and convicted of the Crime of Libel (in what for my country was an incredibly speedy legal process) for accusing a local politician of Corruption.

            Curiously, about a decade later said politician was convicted for Corruption. Lets just say it only happened because that Libel conviction really pissed of that person who had time, brains and no fear of their professional life being affected, so they worked tirelessly behind the curtains to push an earlier report into “irregularities” in his City Hall all the way into and as a case against him, including digging evidence even from abroad and having to threaten with exposure in the Press at least 3 public prosecutors who on different occasions were quietly holding the case so that it didn’t get to court before the deadlines for prosecution expired (and even then that politician actually got away with a number of crimes because the deadlines for prosecution did expired for those). In fact that was the first politician ever in my country convicted of Corruption.

            Libel having been made a Crime in my country (which is quite unusual in the World) was done exactly so that people can be punished for openly accusing the powerful of malfeasance without the powerful having to bare the costs for a civil court case and actually prove damages (so it mainly helps politicians in the big parties who have the connections to get the local Public Prosecutions Office to take the case to court) and that’s exactly how it has been used.

            By an amazing coincidence my country is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe and last I checked was the one most behind in implementing the EU advised anti-Corruption measures.

  • Freigeist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    Just when it became technically feasible to autodecline in all kinds of cookie banners with AI enabled browsers/browser plug-ins…

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    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.

    • Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      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.

              • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                26 days ago

                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

                • Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  26 days ago

                  member of a group of wealthy individuals wielding sovereign power

                  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.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        Did you read the article? It says that making AI training easier is a key purpose of these changes.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            Then why change the rules? The article’s author seems quite convinced that this will make AI training easier.

            • ag10n@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              29 days ago

              Because they want to strip the right to privacy so they can better monetize

              Naive to think the GDPR is stopping anyone now.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                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.

                • ag10n@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  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?

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            Did I say you should approve of it? I’m just explaining why it comes as no surprise to me.

  • ronigami@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    29 days ago

    This is what happens when you act for no reason like you’re better than the US.