- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
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.
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.
And my point was they’re already doing this in the face of regulation.
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.
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.