4 ms·

At first glance this seems like a solely pro privacy development but it's really a further effort to go after US tech companies with some nasty side effects: >

by sqdbps 9y ago

At first glance this seems like a solely pro privacy development but it's really a further effort to go after US tech companies with some nasty side effects: >Among their provisions, the rules enshrine the so-called right to be forgotten into European law Codifying a terrible ruling into law. >The rules also require anyone under 16 to obtain parental consent before using popular digital services It's like COPA but at least an order of magnitude worse. >... the company unveiled a program that uses artificial intelligence to monitor Facebook users for signs of self-harm. But it did not open the program to users in Europe... The social network has also kept out of Europe facial recognition software that tracks when photos of users are posted across the platform.* It hinders innovation, and these examples are probably the least of it. It is very much apparent that these rules were meant for US companies but they will very likely hinder the growth and even the formation of smaller companies that in turn will have to dedicate non trivial resources to insure compliance. Inadvertently or not the EU have introduced a huge barrier to entry.

skummetmaelk 9y ago
>it's really a further effort to go after US tech companies That makes no sense. The rules are not different for US companies so how can it be an attack on them? >The social network has also kept out of Europe facial recognition software that tracks when photos of users are posted across the platform. Are you sad about this? If so, why?
- sqdbps 9y ago
  > The rules are not different for US companies so how can it be an attack on them? That seems like a disingenuous question, the companies that are mainly impacted by these laws are US companies. It might theoretically apply to all companies but in reality they had a handful of US companies in mind when they wrote theses regulations. As for the impeded innovation question, yes I feel that something is lost when a "cool" and useful feature is prevented from materializing.
  - ginko 9y ago
    Facial tracking isn't "cool" and useful. It's creepy and dangerous and I want to be able to opt out of it.
    - sqdbps 9y ago
      I'm in favor of "opt out", I just don't want to eliminate the option.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        The GDPR is in favor of "opt in". It doesn't eliminate the option either, it just makes sure that people are allowed to make informed decisions about their data.
  - skummetmaelk 9y ago
    >the companies that are mainly impacted by these laws are US companies. Any company who handles personal data is impacted. Facebook and Google are not the only ones which do. European online shops and banks also have to comply. Just because Facebook and Google generate the most press on this issue doesn't mean it is an attack on them in particular. Privacy and data concerns are real societal issues. Tackling them is absolutely necessary and the EU is doing a good job by ruling that we own our data.
adrianN 9y ago
Hindering the kind of innovation that violates the citizen's privacy is pretty much the point of the law. A company having a database of my mental health status is incredibly creepy to me. As is the facial recognition thing.
- sqdbps 9y ago
  There is a lot of good that can come out of a database on the mental health of a large population. I think you should be able to opt out of such collection but I'm not in favor of banning such collection altogether.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Realistically, the benefits are better ad targeting and improved addictiveness of the platform. Iotw, no benefit for me. Sure in the best case you can do a lot of good with such data. But that would probably need the data to be open to researchers, not in some corporate silo somewhere. And in the worst case, pervasive surveillance data can do a lot of harm. Just ask yourself what an organization like the Stasi could have done with that kind of data.
  - ionised 9y ago
    It should be opt-in.
  - deadbunny 9y ago
    GDPR makes things opt-in, it means you have to consent. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
avianlyric 9y ago
I don't think this is a very well through out opinion of GDPR. GDPR applies equally to all companies that trade in Europe, not just US companies. So it's difficult to describe it as an attack on US companies. Additionally GDPR simply enshrines some pretty basic social norms around informed consent and transparency. It doesn't prevent anyone doing anything that's privacy invasive, it just requires that: 1) You tell people what you are doing with their data (in plain English) 2) You get their informed consent and give them the option to opt-out (additionally you can't bundle multiple "purposes" together). Both of those things seem pretty fair to me, and it certainly a standard that we apply to other aspects of life (with sex being the most obvious example). So Facebook could train their self-harm detecting AI in the EU, and it can deploy it there. It just needs to ask and get consent from people first, and honour their personal choices. Equally they could train and deploy their face recognition technology in the EU as well. But again they need to get informed consent, and they can't coerce people by only offering their self-harm technology if they also opt into their face recognition technology (they can't bundle multiple "purposes"). Altogether I think that this is pretty simple and fair, and really technology companies are only suffering because in the past they have collected personal data indiscriminately on the basis that it might be useful some day. And for companies that rely on tricking people into handing over personal data, I don't think the world will suffer without them.
- sqdbps 9y ago
  As I've commented below it's disingenuous to say that GDPR applies equally to all companies when it was conceived with US tech companies in mind and is designed to alter their business models. 1) Some of the ideas in there are welcome. 2) When you put roadblocks in front of every data point it's difficult to develop a half decent pattern matching system. A consent prompt upon joining ought to suffice. > technology companies are only suffering because in the past they have collected personal data indiscriminately on the basis that it might be useful some day Perhaps, but the "might be useful someday" part is a route for many an innovation that I want to preserve.
  - avianlyric 9y ago
    I think this law will force people building AI's and ML systems to innovate more and be more thoughtful of how they use peoples data. Companies like DeepMind are already showing that collecting every data point under the sun is unnecessary, and that ML systems can be built with privacy in mind. Anyone that can't be bothered to put the effort in can, quite frankly, die at the hands of the market.
nerdponx 9y ago
Codifying terrible a ruling into law. Care to elaborate?

by sqdbps 9y ago

skummetmaelk 9y ago

>it's really a further effort to go after US tech companies That makes no sense. The rules are not different for US companies so how can it be an attack on them? >The social network has also kept out of Europe facial recognition software that tracks when photos of users are posted across the platform. Are you sad about this? If so, why?

sqdbps 9y ago
> The rules are not different for US companies so how can it be an attack on them? That seems like a disingenuous question, the companies that are mainly impacted by these laws are US companies. It might theoretically apply to all companies but in reality they had a handful of US companies in mind when they wrote theses regulations. As for the impeded innovation question, yes I feel that something is lost when a "cool" and useful feature is prevented from materializing.
- ginko 9y ago
  Facial tracking isn't "cool" and useful. It's creepy and dangerous and I want to be able to opt out of it.
  - sqdbps 9y ago
    I'm in favor of "opt out", I just don't want to eliminate the option.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      The GDPR is in favor of "opt in". It doesn't eliminate the option either, it just makes sure that people are allowed to make informed decisions about their data.
- skummetmaelk 9y ago
  >the companies that are mainly impacted by these laws are US companies. Any company who handles personal data is impacted. Facebook and Google are not the only ones which do. European online shops and banks also have to comply. Just because Facebook and Google generate the most press on this issue doesn't mean it is an attack on them in particular. Privacy and data concerns are real societal issues. Tackling them is absolutely necessary and the EU is doing a good job by ruling that we own our data.

adrianN 9y ago

Hindering the kind of innovation that violates the citizen's privacy is pretty much the point of the law. A company having a database of my mental health status is incredibly creepy to me. As is the facial recognition thing.

sqdbps 9y ago
There is a lot of good that can come out of a database on the mental health of a large population. I think you should be able to opt out of such collection but I'm not in favor of banning such collection altogether.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Realistically, the benefits are better ad targeting and improved addictiveness of the platform. Iotw, no benefit for me. Sure in the best case you can do a lot of good with such data. But that would probably need the data to be open to researchers, not in some corporate silo somewhere. And in the worst case, pervasive surveillance data can do a lot of harm. Just ask yourself what an organization like the Stasi could have done with that kind of data.
- ionised 9y ago
  It should be opt-in.
- deadbunny 9y ago
  GDPR makes things opt-in, it means you have to consent. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

avianlyric 9y ago

I don't think this is a very well through out opinion of GDPR. GDPR applies equally to all companies that trade in Europe, not just US companies. So it's difficult to describe it as an attack on US companies. Additionally GDPR simply enshrines some pretty basic social norms around informed consent and transparency. It doesn't prevent anyone doing anything that's privacy invasive, it just requires that: 1) You tell people what you are doing with their data (in plain English) 2) You get their informed consent and give them the option to opt-out (additionally you can't bundle multiple "purposes" together). Both of those things seem pretty fair to me, and it certainly a standard that we apply to other aspects of life (with sex being the most obvious example). So Facebook could train their self-harm detecting AI in the EU, and it can deploy it there. It just needs to ask and get consent from people first, and honour their personal choices. Equally they could train and deploy their face recognition technology in the EU as well. But again they need to get informed consent, and they can't coerce people by only offering their self-harm technology if they also opt into their face recognition technology (they can't bundle multiple "purposes"). Altogether I think that this is pretty simple and fair, and really technology companies are only suffering because in the past they have collected personal data indiscriminately on the basis that it might be useful some day. And for companies that rely on tricking people into handing over personal data, I don't think the world will suffer without them.

sqdbps 9y ago
As I've commented below it's disingenuous to say that GDPR applies equally to all companies when it was conceived with US tech companies in mind and is designed to alter their business models. 1) Some of the ideas in there are welcome. 2) When you put roadblocks in front of every data point it's difficult to develop a half decent pattern matching system. A consent prompt upon joining ought to suffice. > technology companies are only suffering because in the past they have collected personal data indiscriminately on the basis that it might be useful some day Perhaps, but the "might be useful someday" part is a route for many an innovation that I want to preserve.
- avianlyric 9y ago
  I think this law will force people building AI's and ML systems to innovate more and be more thoughtful of how they use peoples data. Companies like DeepMind are already showing that collecting every data point under the sun is unnecessary, and that ML systems can be built with privacy in mind. Anyone that can't be bothered to put the effort in can, quite frankly, die at the hands of the market.

nerdponx 9y ago

Codifying terrible a ruling into law. Care to elaborate?