3 ms·

Everything you said about gdpr is wrong. Publishing one name publicly gives no explicit nor implicit consent to third parties to handle such data. You absolut

Everything you said about gdpr is wrong. Publishing one name publicly gives no explicit nor implicit consent to third parties to handle such data. You absolutely have the right to change your mind, and company need to delete your data on demand. Gdpr absolutely codify the process to obtain, update and delete data from third parties. And Gdpr definitely do not care how much hard is to unpublished data.

dahart 4y ago
Sorry, I must not have been very clear, and it seems like perhaps you didn’t follow the thread about what @BoppreH actually did. This is not a case of one exchange that can reasonably be revoked. This appears to be a case of @BoppreH publishing his own information publicly for years in multiple places, and using the same username everywhere. People do this on purpose in order to do business, to build online reputations, and to link to their offline lives. You’re also mistaken about the scope and reach of GDPR as it applies to what @BoppreH was asking for. The GDPR has been quite effective so far about making companies keep PII to themselves, stop selling it without consent, take reasonable precautions with it. It has done very good things for privacy. This thread isn’t about accidentally leaked medical records or purchase preferences. This thread appears to be about someone who wants to undo a decade of their own internet activity that has spread far and wide. That’s not a reasonable request. Look, there are laws that help you with interactions with a specific company, or that can help unpublish libel, or help with a single event or an egregious mistake in the past. But there just aren’t laws that can let you change your mind about a wide swath of information that you leave online for years, information that exchanges many hands and no longer involves any one single company.
- mst 4y ago
  > You’re also mistaken about the scope and reach of GDPR I suspect you're correct, but the point of the original post was, I believe, to link the moral concerns behind GDPR to moral concerns about language models. For the record: I personally believe that (a) there is a morality issue here (b) the existence of the relevant technology means there's no going back anyway.
  - dahart 4y ago
    I agree the post was attempting to link moral concerns between AI and GDPR, but I reject the link to AI and language models in this case. I don’t think the link has been clearly established in this case, and it seems like too many assumptions were made. The poster is suggesting that AI should be held to a higher standard than Google and Bing; in effect that AI should be both smarter and more culpable than people. This is giving AI too much credit, anthropomorphizing, and also asking for an unrealistic and maybe dangerous precedent. I’m curious to hear more about what the moral issue is from your perspective. There are legitimate privacy concerns surrounding PII and AI, and surrounding PII and the internet in general. There are legitimate concerns about ways that AI can infer non-public information. There are also legitimate concerns about humanity’s ability to record history and also about the legal and financial liabilities that might come about when recording publicly available information. Those are big general debates and are worthy of attention. This particular case hasn’t convinced me yet, since the PII was knowingly posted, left online for some time, and since the AI is only regurgitating knowledge that Google also has.

dahart 4y ago

Sorry, I must not have been very clear, and it seems like perhaps you didn’t follow the thread about what @BoppreH actually did. This is not a case of one exchange that can reasonably be revoked. This appears to be a case of @BoppreH publishing his own information publicly for years in multiple places, and using the same username everywhere. People do this on purpose in order to do business, to build online reputations, and to link to their offline lives. You’re also mistaken about the scope and reach of GDPR as it applies to what @BoppreH was asking for. The GDPR has been quite effective so far about making companies keep PII to themselves, stop selling it without consent, take reasonable precautions with it. It has done very good things for privacy. This thread isn’t about accidentally leaked medical records or purchase preferences. This thread appears to be about someone who wants to undo a decade of their own internet activity that has spread far and wide. That’s not a reasonable request. Look, there are laws that help you with interactions with a specific company, or that can help unpublish libel, or help with a single event or an egregious mistake in the past. But there just aren’t laws that can let you change your mind about a wide swath of information that you leave online for years, information that exchanges many hands and no longer involves any one single company.

mst 4y ago
> You’re also mistaken about the scope and reach of GDPR I suspect you're correct, but the point of the original post was, I believe, to link the moral concerns behind GDPR to moral concerns about language models. For the record: I personally believe that (a) there is a morality issue here (b) the existence of the relevant technology means there's no going back anyway.
- dahart 4y ago
  I agree the post was attempting to link moral concerns between AI and GDPR, but I reject the link to AI and language models in this case. I don’t think the link has been clearly established in this case, and it seems like too many assumptions were made. The poster is suggesting that AI should be held to a higher standard than Google and Bing; in effect that AI should be both smarter and more culpable than people. This is giving AI too much credit, anthropomorphizing, and also asking for an unrealistic and maybe dangerous precedent. I’m curious to hear more about what the moral issue is from your perspective. There are legitimate privacy concerns surrounding PII and AI, and surrounding PII and the internet in general. There are legitimate concerns about ways that AI can infer non-public information. There are also legitimate concerns about humanity’s ability to record history and also about the legal and financial liabilities that might come about when recording publicly available information. Those are big general debates and are worthy of attention. This particular case hasn’t convinced me yet, since the PII was knowingly posted, left online for some time, and since the AI is only regurgitating knowledge that Google also has.