6 ms·

They lose all the data though. They may have avoided some name smearing but it's the data that they really want.

Nextgrid 5y ago
I'd argue that the data has already been integrated into ML models or mixed in such a way that there's no way to even tell where the data originated from. While the logical conclusion would be to just delete any data they can't prove a legitimate origin for, I very much doubt this is going to happen. Most importantly, tens of billions have already been made using this ill-gotten data.
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  Or just force all models to be deleted that had any input of that data in the first place. If they don't do that in practice let the whistleblowers do their job in exposing the companies.
  - kova12 5y ago
    Good luck identifying these models. By now what caused what is so muddled, it could get a small army of lawyers to even start detangling
    - Puts 5y ago
      According to the GDPR the burden of proving compliance is on the controller by keeping paper trails and documentation. So technically they would already need to be able to prove were all data has come from, or else they can't have it. So either they start untangling or they delete it. :)
      - namlem 5y ago
        The models aren't the data and aren't regulated under GDPR. It would be crazy to try to do so tbh.
        littlestymaar 5y ago
        The models aren't subject to GDPR, but which data went to which model is: every data treatment must be documented.
- Guest42 5y ago
  I wonder if these models would become inaccurate over time without the data inflow.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  The GDPR doesn't apply to data that can't be related to a natural person. Those models would therefore no longer be under the scope. Another example: You get consent from me, count your distinct visitors for January and I revoke my consent tomorrow. You do not have to change your visitor count retroactively.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > The GDPR doesn't apply to data that can't be related to a natural person. Those models would therefore no longer be under the scope. Give me the models and a week, and I'll dox some people with them.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    I don't think that's a fair example, because the issue is not about inaccurate data (the view count), but illegally gathered data. An analog example would be stealing paint and painting your car with it. Should the paint be stripped off the car and given back? I don't know, but the victims are entitled to compensation, which isn't happening in the Google/Amazon case.
    - tomjen3 5y ago
      With your paint analogy, it feels like a "you wouldn't download car paint" situation.

I'd argue that the data has already been integrated into ML models or mixed in such a way that there's no way to even tell where the data originated from. While the logical conclusion would be to just delete any data they can't prove a legitimate origin for, I very much doubt this is going to happen. Most importantly, tens of billions have already been made using this ill-gotten data.

heavenlyblue 5y ago
Or just force all models to be deleted that had any input of that data in the first place. If they don't do that in practice let the whistleblowers do their job in exposing the companies.
- kova12 5y ago
  Good luck identifying these models. By now what caused what is so muddled, it could get a small army of lawyers to even start detangling
  - Puts 5y ago
    According to the GDPR the burden of proving compliance is on the controller by keeping paper trails and documentation. So technically they would already need to be able to prove were all data has come from, or else they can't have it. So either they start untangling or they delete it. :)
    - namlem 5y ago
      The models aren't the data and aren't regulated under GDPR. It would be crazy to try to do so tbh.
      - littlestymaar 5y ago
        The models aren't subject to GDPR, but which data went to which model is: every data treatment must be documented.
Guest42 5y ago
I wonder if these models would become inaccurate over time without the data inflow.
tomjen3 5y ago
The GDPR doesn't apply to data that can't be related to a natural person. Those models would therefore no longer be under the scope. Another example: You get consent from me, count your distinct visitors for January and I revoke my consent tomorrow. You do not have to change your visitor count retroactively.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > The GDPR doesn't apply to data that can't be related to a natural person. Those models would therefore no longer be under the scope. Give me the models and a week, and I'll dox some people with them.
- xdennis 5y ago
  I don't think that's a fair example, because the issue is not about inaccurate data (the view count), but illegally gathered data. An analog example would be stealing paint and painting your car with it. Should the paint be stripped off the car and given back? I don't know, but the victims are entitled to compensation, which isn't happening in the Google/Amazon case.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    With your paint analogy, it feels like a "you wouldn't download car paint" situation.