> Look at the EU, GDPR etc they work. They are made to look like they work, in practice, its unenforceable, and backups including software still dont have any

> Look at the EU, GDPR etc they work. They are made to look like they work, in practice, its unenforceable, and backups including software still dont have any easy way to delete an individuals records, mostly because its a database that is backed up and you'd have to restore the database in order to clear the individuals data. Secondly, nobody has to wipe data if its being used for law enforcement or scientific purposes. Those are two loaded parameters, but look at what wiki says because its hard to get access to case law and the legislation search facilities in various countries is absolutely despicable; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement "Law enforcement is the activity of some members of government who act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, deterring, rehabilitating, or punishing people who violate the rules and norms governing that society." Discovering means hacking people's computer systems as Edward Snowden highlighted, so the security services will take everything they can find and when they dont have the tools, they have the search engines to fall back on via court orders if need be! Other point is anyone who is not the police can make records and say they are for law enforcement purposes as well! Neighbourhood watch is a voluntary law enforcement scheme engaged by the public. Its even listed on wiki in the UK Law enforcement index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_enforcement_in_th... The other parameter is scientific purposes, again what exactly is scientific purposes? Is it training an AI, would all the tech companies like facebook, MS, Apple & Google et al be justified in retaining all and any data they can get their hands on in order to further develop AGI? They would be, but recently the UK data commissioner seemed to ignore the law and fined US based Clearview AI a facial recognition company £7.5 million for collecting 20billion images of people. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10845123/Orwellian-facial-recognition-company-used-UK-police-forces-fined-7-5M.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10845123/Orwellian-... Now the fact that UK Police authorities are reportedly using their services, would suggest the Police are happy with what Clearview AI have done, no criminality whatsoever, but the data commissioner thinks otherwise. The other misdirection is the fine is not that much money. Whilst it will effect a behaviour change in Clearview AI, that behaviour change may well include putting up the prices because the data commissioner gave them a free advert which police and law enforcement agencies elsewhere in the world will sit up and notice. As they are also US based, any UK enforcement notices are just hot air. This imo is nothing more than an advert and a way to make Clearview AI charge more. This is on a par with the US Coastguard and Canada and the Northwest Passage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Polar_Sea_controversy#Voyage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Polar_Sea_controversy#Voy... Some of the Northwest Passage is classed as international waters, the US coastguard using it instead of Panama (usage fees) gave Canada the reason to take the US to some international court and whilst getting a fine levied on the US coastguard also happened to get the Northwest Passage recognised as Canadian waters so that Canada could start charging fees for ships using it! It also advertised the waterways as open for business because of the lack of arctic ice, ironically Russia also helped Canada out here as well by recognising the Canadian waters so there is now an alternative to using the Panama canal for some journeys. If you are a soccer player, this is kicking the ball out of play for the other team.