6 ms·

> As has always been the case, privacy needs to be considered before publishing information about yourself, not after. How? 10 years ago one could not expect t

> As has always been the case, privacy needs to be considered before publishing information about yourself, not after. How? 10 years ago one could not expect that all of the internet is used as training data for an AI model. The processor has to have a legal basis for processing your data even if it is publicly available. One could argue that there is some kind of consent if the data is publicly available, but consent can be revoked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten > The right to privacy constitutes information that is not publicly known, whereas the right to be forgotten involves removing information that was publicly known at a certain time and not allowing third parties to access the information. I think you could make a case under GDPR where making the model is data processing and the BoppreH could demand to be erased for the dataset. Why is he in the dataset in the first place? Why is anyone? Am I in it? Aren't this legitimate questions?

dahart 4y ago
> One could argue that there is some kind of consent if the data is publicly available I’m not arguing that all publicly available information implies consent (it does not), I’m simply repeating what @BoppreH already said : that he gave the consent in this case. The reason we need GDPR and other privacy laws is primarily for cases when someone else decides to publish your PII. This is different, this is a case of the user publishing their own PII and allowing it to be public for a long time. > How? 10 years ago one could not expect that all of the internet is used as training data for an AI model. Hehe, are you joking? You must be young because people have been expecting this information explosion and archival for a hundred years and more, and people were talking about using the whole internet for AI training ever since the internet and neural networks were invented, complaining that we didn’t have the computational power yet, more than 50 years ago. Archive.org (saving the entire internet) and Google (indexing the entire internet) both launched almost thirty years ago. Ten years ago there were already debates that could stand in for this very thread. The AI model is completely irrelevant here, and it has been from the very first comment. AI isn’t @BoppreH’s problem, his problem is that he willingly published his name on the internet and now doesn’t want people to know it, via Google or any search index. The AI did not glean any PII about him that Google and Bing and multiple other sites hadn’t already indexed. As to how … Well, there are sayings out there older than dirt that clearly discuss how to keep your things private. The so-called “New York Times” rule is pretty well known, but is just one example in a class of such general advice that is probably as old as the printing press, and comes in many variations. Don’t do or write down anything you wouldn’t want printed on the front page of the New York Times. If it’s private, keep it private. * BTW I’m sure you saw that above the WP sentence you quoted, there was a lot of text that broadly if indirectly supports what I’m trying to say. The right to be forgotten isn’t the right to be forgotten from all online existence, it’s not something you can use to force all published information about you for all time to disappear at everyone else’s expense, it’s a right that people can sometimes exercise to fix specific mistakes, and it gives specific examples such as revenge porn. And again, most of the examples involve someone else publishing your info without consent. Wishing the right to be forgotten gave us editorial power over history is extremely problematic, as was stated right on that Wikipedia page.
- number6 4y ago
  > his problem is that he willingly published his name on the internet and now doesn’t want people to know it, via Google or any search index. The AI did not glean any PII about him that He consented and if this is the legal basis, he has the right to withdraw the consent at any time without reason. The data then has to be removed. This is done by search engines on regular bases, e.g. DMCA Takedowns. > Hehe, are you joking? You must be young because people have been expecting this information explosion and archival for a hundred years and more, and people were talking about using the whole internet for AI training ever since the internet and neural networks were invented, complaining that we didn’t have the computational power yet, more than 50 years ago To average Joe this is still something out of the realm of science fiction. They are still wondering if the phone is listening to them if they get ads of products that they are talking about. I understand your point and I am ambivalent about both sides but in doubt I would opt for the strong privacy side. Ea-nasir for example could not have dreamed about what happened to the complaint letter [0] and this is not something New York Times worthy at the time the complaint was written. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir
  - dahart 4y ago
    > he has the right to withdraw the consent at any time without reason. From whom? Your claim there is neither broadly true according to both articles you quoted, nor is it particularly practical. And the practical part is the part you are consistently ignoring here. Theoretical rights are useless if they can’t be realistically exercised. This is no longer something he can request of any one single company, the data is presumably all over the internet, with no reason to believe GDPR even applies since GDPR has no jurisdiction over non-EU sites that don’t target EU users and don’t do any specific business in the EU. You might be able to request something from Google maybe, but good luck and Godspeed with Baidu and Yandex and any site outside of EU jurisdiction. DMCA takedowns target specific content, they are used by copyright holders to assert rights to a given video, song, image, etc. DMCA takedowns have not been used to erase years worth of random PII connected to someone’s username on the internet, nor has GDPR, nor has a right to be forgotten law. And, as everyone knowns, DMCA takedowns are sometimes completely ineffective because it’s hard to put the two million cats back in the bag. The most troubling part of this thread to me is multiple people here asserting the existence of seemingly absolute rights without even a passing acknowledgment or thought to the ramifications and what negative consequences it would have if people started demanding editorial power over the entire internet over casual, consensual, and non-damaging PII. It might not be apparent from my comments yet, but I’m a firmly in the camp of privacy advocates, I think the GDPR has done wonderful things, and yet I see this argument as both lacking historical perspective and being completely unrealistic. I don’t want to live in a world where it’s illegal to record history and everyone can erase minor things they regret long after they explicitly agreed to publication. I’m perfectly fine with the existence of rights to undo certain mistakes and wrongdoings, but generally speaking I think it’s a mistake to even want the ability to revoke any non-threatening public information at any time, completely aside from the fact that that is not actually broadly available in any country today.

dahart 4y ago

> One could argue that there is some kind of consent if the data is publicly available I’m not arguing that all publicly available information implies consent (it does not), I’m simply repeating what @BoppreH already said : that he gave the consent in this case. The reason we need GDPR and other privacy laws is primarily for cases when someone else decides to publish your PII. This is different, this is a case of the user publishing their own PII and allowing it to be public for a long time. > How? 10 years ago one could not expect that all of the internet is used as training data for an AI model. Hehe, are you joking? You must be young because people have been expecting this information explosion and archival for a hundred years and more, and people were talking about using the whole internet for AI training ever since the internet and neural networks were invented, complaining that we didn’t have the computational power yet, more than 50 years ago. Archive.org (saving the entire internet) and Google (indexing the entire internet) both launched almost thirty years ago. Ten years ago there were already debates that could stand in for this very thread. The AI model is completely irrelevant here, and it has been from the very first comment. AI isn’t @BoppreH’s problem, his problem is that he willingly published his name on the internet and now doesn’t want people to know it, via Google or any search index. The AI did not glean any PII about him that Google and Bing and multiple other sites hadn’t already indexed. As to how … Well, there are sayings out there older than dirt that clearly discuss how to keep your things private. The so-called “New York Times” rule is pretty well known, but is just one example in a class of such general advice that is probably as old as the printing press, and comes in many variations. Don’t do or write down anything you wouldn’t want printed on the front page of the New York Times. If it’s private, keep it private. * BTW I’m sure you saw that above the WP sentence you quoted, there was a lot of text that broadly if indirectly supports what I’m trying to say. The right to be forgotten isn’t the right to be forgotten from all online existence, it’s not something you can use to force all published information about you for all time to disappear at everyone else’s expense, it’s a right that people can sometimes exercise to fix specific mistakes, and it gives specific examples such as revenge porn. And again, most of the examples involve someone else publishing your info without consent. Wishing the right to be forgotten gave us editorial power over history is extremely problematic, as was stated right on that Wikipedia page.

number6 4y ago
> his problem is that he willingly published his name on the internet and now doesn’t want people to know it, via Google or any search index. The AI did not glean any PII about him that He consented and if this is the legal basis, he has the right to withdraw the consent at any time without reason. The data then has to be removed. This is done by search engines on regular bases, e.g. DMCA Takedowns. > Hehe, are you joking? You must be young because people have been expecting this information explosion and archival for a hundred years and more, and people were talking about using the whole internet for AI training ever since the internet and neural networks were invented, complaining that we didn’t have the computational power yet, more than 50 years ago To average Joe this is still something out of the realm of science fiction. They are still wondering if the phone is listening to them if they get ads of products that they are talking about. I understand your point and I am ambivalent about both sides but in doubt I would opt for the strong privacy side. Ea-nasir for example could not have dreamed about what happened to the complaint letter [0] and this is not something New York Times worthy at the time the complaint was written. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir
- dahart 4y ago
  > he has the right to withdraw the consent at any time without reason. From whom? Your claim there is neither broadly true according to both articles you quoted, nor is it particularly practical. And the practical part is the part you are consistently ignoring here. Theoretical rights are useless if they can’t be realistically exercised. This is no longer something he can request of any one single company, the data is presumably all over the internet, with no reason to believe GDPR even applies since GDPR has no jurisdiction over non-EU sites that don’t target EU users and don’t do any specific business in the EU. You might be able to request something from Google maybe, but good luck and Godspeed with Baidu and Yandex and any site outside of EU jurisdiction. DMCA takedowns target specific content, they are used by copyright holders to assert rights to a given video, song, image, etc. DMCA takedowns have not been used to erase years worth of random PII connected to someone’s username on the internet, nor has GDPR, nor has a right to be forgotten law. And, as everyone knowns, DMCA takedowns are sometimes completely ineffective because it’s hard to put the two million cats back in the bag. The most troubling part of this thread to me is multiple people here asserting the existence of seemingly absolute rights without even a passing acknowledgment or thought to the ramifications and what negative consequences it would have if people started demanding editorial power over the entire internet over casual, consensual, and non-damaging PII. It might not be apparent from my comments yet, but I’m a firmly in the camp of privacy advocates, I think the GDPR has done wonderful things, and yet I see this argument as both lacking historical perspective and being completely unrealistic. I don’t want to live in a world where it’s illegal to record history and everyone can erase minor things they regret long after they explicitly agreed to publication. I’m perfectly fine with the existence of rights to undo certain mistakes and wrongdoings, but generally speaking I think it’s a mistake to even want the ability to revoke any non-threatening public information at any time, completely aside from the fact that that is not actually broadly available in any country today.