4 ms·

>The proposal also wants to prohibit AI systems that cause harm to people by manipulating their behavior, opinions or decisions; exploit or target people's vuln

>The proposal also wants to prohibit AI systems that cause harm to people by manipulating their behavior, opinions or decisions; exploit or target people's vulnerabilities; and for mass surveillance. >But the rules carve out an exception allowing authorities to use the tech if they're fighting serious crime Wow, if I haven't heard this "proposal" format before in dystopian book or real-world cases... I'd say it miss the mark completely considering the problem whatever lax definition of "AI" we use today is that the advancements and benefits seems to be concentrating mostly on big tech. For China, you can add "Big Gov" on that list. And now EU want to add another asterisk in their rule-book allowing big Gov to enter that list. Seems like a poor proposal made to target Sci-fi "Black mirror" rather than reality, and failing while at it.

AstralStorm 6y ago
The exception should be gone, as it is literally empowering government . We do not have such exception in GDPR, and neither should we for police systems. If the statistical or AI system makes a serious mistake in this area, consequences are even more disastrous. Their usefulness is dubious anyway.
- krageon 6y ago
  > We do not have such exception in GDPR We do in fact have an exception in the GDPR for specific agencies involved in fighting serious crime. You may look at the specific text for that here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN#d1e2884-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    The agencies have separate privacy regulation concerning their data handling, however. It is more stringent except for consent.
    - krageon 6y ago
      Please don't spread baseless propaganda. We have far too many examples of security agencies not following the "rules" they impose on themselves except when it's convenient. It's in nobody's best interest to believe someone that keeps lying to you.

AstralStorm 6y ago

The exception should be gone, as it is literally empowering government . We do not have such exception in GDPR, and neither should we for police systems. If the statistical or AI system makes a serious mistake in this area, consequences are even more disastrous. Their usefulness is dubious anyway.

krageon 6y ago
> We do not have such exception in GDPR We do in fact have an exception in the GDPR for specific agencies involved in fighting serious crime. You may look at the specific text for that here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN#d1e2884-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  The agencies have separate privacy regulation concerning their data handling, however. It is more stringent except for consent.
  - krageon 6y ago
    Please don't spread baseless propaganda. We have far too many examples of security agencies not following the "rules" they impose on themselves except when it's convenient. It's in nobody's best interest to believe someone that keeps lying to you.