7 ms·

Gosh. Only about 10 years ago I used to be a convinced European from Germany. The last couple of years I started having my doubts that the EU will ever find its

Gosh. Only about 10 years ago I used to be a convinced European from Germany. The last couple of years I started having my doubts that the EU will ever find its own legit style of handling tech concerns. Everything is crumbling and we still see deeply arrogant leadership seemingly trying to bs their way through the current turmoil. And what do they do? Regulate ChatGPT, try to introduce mass-surveillance through #chatcontrol and secretly apply Palantir tech in police depts. I don't want an incompetent patronizing government. I want competent leadership in politics and business that is able to set up a culture of innovation.

roomey 4y ago
But this is a domestic regulator, making a domestic finding. This isn't an EU level decision. Countries in the EU have a lot of control over their own affairs, as they should. Conflating EU and Domestic policies is a bad thing (this was done a lot in the UK)
- simonh 4y ago
  It was done massively in the UK, there were many cases of prominent criticism of "EU regulations" that we'd either actively championed, or were optional and chosen to adopt, or that we had actually oped out of anyway.
  - seanhunter 4y ago
    As an example, Boris Johnson infamously claimed in the runup to brexit that "Prawn Cocktail" flavour crisps were being banned by the EU. It turned out that the UK had simply forgotten to submit this flavour to the list of flavourings when it was being compiled. This error was quietly corrected (by the UK).[1] [1] From the FT but here's a non-paywalled link https://archive.is/p4H9X https://archive.is/p4H9X
    - throwaway50601 4y ago
      Why the hell is there a list of crisp flavors at the EU? What if I want to make and sell my own original one?
      - jodrellblank 4y ago
        Are you seriously confused why governments regulate what can be put in food and sold to the public? Here's a classic for you, one of the early incidents which lead to this kind of regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning Here's some more contemporary links: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/additives/eu-rules_en https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/add... https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/flavourings/eu-lists-flavourings_en https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/fla... Which includes an answer to your question: "The procedure for authorisation of a flavouring substance is common to the one established for food additives and enzymes under Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008."
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        dylan604 4y ago
        The fact that something called "flavouring substance" is a thing makes me shake my head. >Are you seriously confused why governments regulate what can be put in food and sold to the public? Are these the same regulators that allowed Olestra to be used? sidebar--just to check the spelling of Olestra, I used the Mac's force click dictionary access: "Origin 1980s: from (p)ol(y)est(e)r + the suffix -a." WTF? Seriously? We dropped some letters from polyester and called it food ingredient? Yeah, sounds like some "regulations will save us" doesn't work as expected.
        cccbbbaaa 4y ago
        As I can't find when olestra products were sold in the EU, the answer seems to be “no”. Don't hesitate to prove me wrong though.
    - simonh 4y ago
      Then there's Boris as London Mayor in 2014 decrying the UK government obstructing EU legislation to make lorries safer. Then 2018 Boris decrying the UK supposedly being held up waiting for EU regulations on lorry safety. All the while despite the fact there was nothing to stop the UK implementing rules on the same issues, which a later London Mayor ended up doing anyway.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    I only skimmed the article but we (UK) have our own nearly identical GDPR. So Italy's concerns might also apply to us, and every EU nation with EU GDPR. BUT let's not kid ourselves there is huge pressure to stop OpenAI from techphobes to pearl-clutching techphiles and of course ruthless rivals who want a breather to catchup.
    - CraigJPerry 4y ago
      >> and of course ruthless rivals who want a breather to catchup This was the bit i wondered about, there’s at least an incentive for this kind of jiggery pokery lobbying but little transparency.
- AlanYx 4y ago
  >But this is a domestic regulator, making a domestic finding. It's a decision by a domestic DPA based on the GDPR. In practice, it will have an impact across the EU, because any company intending to operate uniformly across the EU has to, in practice, comply with the most onerous GDPR interpretation taken by any domestic DPA. This ratcheting effect is a practical reality given how the GDPR operates. It's also why orgs like Schrems' NOYB celebrate individual victories with the most activist DPAs. They ultimately do have an impact across the EU.
- nforgerit 4y ago
  Conflating EU and Domestic policies probably happens in every EU country. It's also a German thing to fingerpoint at Brussels. This whole ping-pong is disastrous for our democracies. In this certain case, I see already other nation's leaders and eventually the EU commission feeling inspired by this "bold" way Italy deals with ChatGPT. And #chatcontrol is an issue that directly comes from the EU commission (again the German "home secretary" is pointing at Brussels while officially hilariously stating "no we won't install client-side scanning everywhere").
  - iso1631 4y ago
    > It's also a German thing to fingerpoint at Brussels I wonder where Belgians point to. Schuman?
    - foepys 4y ago
      Strasbourg when the whole European Parliament is moving there for 4 days 12 times a year.
ddren 4y ago
What is the issue with the GDPR? If OpenAI is violating the GDPR, why should European governments ignore it?
- nforgerit 4y ago
  In the beginning of GDPR I remember me sitting in annoying meetings with lawyers who essentially became Product Owners and designers while I still thought the GDPR-Framework makes sense in itself and might help in practice. But boy was I wrong. The people criticizing GDPR were right: Tech giants were able to cope better with the regulations while smaller domestic companies were put under an additional burden of excessive bureaucracy. And from what I perceive, there's now cookie banners everywhere while my personal data is still going into opaque silos.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    > And from what I perceive, there's now cookie banners everywhere while my personal data is still going into opaque silos. Those cookie banners are either non-compliant with the regulations or meaningless. Why people add them is anyones guess.
    - nforgerit 4y ago
      Yeah. Mozilla with their ad-network visualization and browser extensions did more to privacy in practice than any GDPR regulation in which exchanging business cards became some kind of mexican standoff.
    - swores 4y ago
      No that's not true, though it does get spouted very often in online comments. It's true that a cookie banner (notification only) does not equal "the site can now do whatever it wants and is GDPR compliant thanks to the banner". However, cookie notification banners are nothing to do with GDPR! They are to comply with an earlier (but still active after GDPR) bit of legislation, the 2002 'ePrivacy Directive' (sometimes known as the "cookies law"). If you don't go near personal data, but still want to use cookies for website functionality, then GDPR doesn't apply but you need to notify users of your use of cookies. If you are doing stuff that's covered under GDPR, then you obviously need to do more than just a cookie notification, and in most cases doing that 'more' will cover the non-personal cookies too so no need for a separate cookie notification on top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communications_Directive_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communi... edit to be more specific: section (25) includes "Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using." and "Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose." (meaning that unlike with GDPR, it's easier to say "these cookies are necessary, accept them or don't use this website") Full text of that 2002 directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... And usual disclaimer, this is not legal advice, if you're doing anything affected by either the ePrivacy Directive or GDPR you'd do well to do one or both of getting specific advice from a lawyer with specific expertise in this area, and that if it's a personal site (or a company without the money for legal advice), better safe than sorry and better to give users more power (in terms of requiring their consent to use even cookies that might not need explicit opt-in to be legal, etc) than required rather than less. Both better in terms of liability, and in terms of ethics!
Mizoguchi 4y ago
Ironically they seem to be ok with the CCP controlling their telecommunications.
artificialLimbs 4y ago
>> I want competent leadership in politics and business that is able to set up a culture of innovation. I don't really want my government 'innovating' much at all. I want them to provide for defense of the people and freedoms. How many competent government leaders have you seen?
- seydor 4y ago
  Would you be OK with an AI government that caters to those objectives?
  - artificialLimbs 4y ago
    I think a more helpfully formulated question would be "why would I be OK with an AI government that caters to these objectives?"
    - seydor 4y ago
      the AI can prove that it catered to those objectives, isn't that the problem you stated?
      - artificialLimbs 4y ago
        The AI is unaccountable. If the leaders get good ideas from the AI, then cool, let them present them and take responsibility.
        seydor 4y ago
        accountability does not guarantee future improvement, while an AI can be continuously retrained
        artificialLimbs 4y ago
        AI does not guarantee future improvement either. Humans can also be continuously retrained. I don't understand your point.
ur-whale 4y ago
>Only about 10 years ago I used to be a convinced European from Germany. Hear, hear. How many "accept all cookies" button did you have to press today?
- illiarian 4y ago
  Please show me which part of GDPR mandates that banner. As additional homework, you can also lookup malicious compliance etc. Or even the sibling discussion on how Facebook wants you to apply for a permission to opt out of their tracking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35383925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35383925
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    The banners proliferated after GDPR was instituted. Privacy should have been promoted through technological means, e.g the EU could have funded development of fingerprintless browser technologies, zero-knowledge proof based identity verification, etc, instead of through bureaucratic regimentation of private interaction.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      Same to you: Please show me which part of GDPR mandates that banner. Also, where the GDPR talks about browsers or cookies or gingerprints.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Far too many. Not, however, on Hacker News, because Hacker News isn't using data for more than actual functionality, and you don't need to ask permission in that case.
squarefoot 4y ago
Convinced European and Italian here. While I feel zero respect for our new corrupt government, this could be a bold, yet necessary, move, provided it is really temporary and motivated by concern about personal data misuse. New developments in AI can offer bad players the most incredibly powerful communication weapon ever created, and although I'd be strongly against any kind of blockage, I can agree that things in that field are progressing too fast and we (as society) need time to fully understand the implications and dangers should it (read: when it will) be used to take advantage of people, and grow the necessary antibodies. edit: minor additions/corrections

roomey 4y ago

But this is a domestic regulator, making a domestic finding. This isn't an EU level decision. Countries in the EU have a lot of control over their own affairs, as they should. Conflating EU and Domestic policies is a bad thing (this was done a lot in the UK)

simonh 4y ago
It was done massively in the UK, there were many cases of prominent criticism of "EU regulations" that we'd either actively championed, or were optional and chosen to adopt, or that we had actually oped out of anyway.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  As an example, Boris Johnson infamously claimed in the runup to brexit that "Prawn Cocktail" flavour crisps were being banned by the EU. It turned out that the UK had simply forgotten to submit this flavour to the list of flavourings when it was being compiled. This error was quietly corrected (by the UK).[1] [1] From the FT but here's a non-paywalled link https://archive.is/p4H9X https://archive.is/p4H9X
  - throwaway50601 4y ago
    Why the hell is there a list of crisp flavors at the EU? What if I want to make and sell my own original one?
    - jodrellblank 4y ago
      Are you seriously confused why governments regulate what can be put in food and sold to the public? Here's a classic for you, one of the early incidents which lead to this kind of regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning Here's some more contemporary links: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/additives/eu-rules_en https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/add... https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/flavourings/eu-lists-flavourings_en https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/fla... Which includes an answer to your question: "The procedure for authorisation of a flavouring substance is common to the one established for food additives and enzymes under Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008."
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - dylan604 4y ago
        The fact that something called "flavouring substance" is a thing makes me shake my head. >Are you seriously confused why governments regulate what can be put in food and sold to the public? Are these the same regulators that allowed Olestra to be used? sidebar--just to check the spelling of Olestra, I used the Mac's force click dictionary access: "Origin 1980s: from (p)ol(y)est(e)r + the suffix -a." WTF? Seriously? We dropped some letters from polyester and called it food ingredient? Yeah, sounds like some "regulations will save us" doesn't work as expected.
        cccbbbaaa 4y ago
        As I can't find when olestra products were sold in the EU, the answer seems to be “no”. Don't hesitate to prove me wrong though.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Then there's Boris as London Mayor in 2014 decrying the UK government obstructing EU legislation to make lorries safer. Then 2018 Boris decrying the UK supposedly being held up waiting for EU regulations on lorry safety. All the while despite the fact there was nothing to stop the UK implementing rules on the same issues, which a later London Mayor ended up doing anyway.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  I only skimmed the article but we (UK) have our own nearly identical GDPR. So Italy's concerns might also apply to us, and every EU nation with EU GDPR. BUT let's not kid ourselves there is huge pressure to stop OpenAI from techphobes to pearl-clutching techphiles and of course ruthless rivals who want a breather to catchup.
  - CraigJPerry 4y ago
    >> and of course ruthless rivals who want a breather to catchup This was the bit i wondered about, there’s at least an incentive for this kind of jiggery pokery lobbying but little transparency.
AlanYx 4y ago
>But this is a domestic regulator, making a domestic finding. It's a decision by a domestic DPA based on the GDPR. In practice, it will have an impact across the EU, because any company intending to operate uniformly across the EU has to, in practice, comply with the most onerous GDPR interpretation taken by any domestic DPA. This ratcheting effect is a practical reality given how the GDPR operates. It's also why orgs like Schrems' NOYB celebrate individual victories with the most activist DPAs. They ultimately do have an impact across the EU.
nforgerit 4y ago
Conflating EU and Domestic policies probably happens in every EU country. It's also a German thing to fingerpoint at Brussels. This whole ping-pong is disastrous for our democracies. In this certain case, I see already other nation's leaders and eventually the EU commission feeling inspired by this "bold" way Italy deals with ChatGPT. And #chatcontrol is an issue that directly comes from the EU commission (again the German "home secretary" is pointing at Brussels while officially hilariously stating "no we won't install client-side scanning everywhere").
- iso1631 4y ago
  > It's also a German thing to fingerpoint at Brussels I wonder where Belgians point to. Schuman?
  - foepys 4y ago
    Strasbourg when the whole European Parliament is moving there for 4 days 12 times a year.

ddren 4y ago

What is the issue with the GDPR? If OpenAI is violating the GDPR, why should European governments ignore it?

nforgerit 4y ago
In the beginning of GDPR I remember me sitting in annoying meetings with lawyers who essentially became Product Owners and designers while I still thought the GDPR-Framework makes sense in itself and might help in practice. But boy was I wrong. The people criticizing GDPR were right: Tech giants were able to cope better with the regulations while smaller domestic companies were put under an additional burden of excessive bureaucracy. And from what I perceive, there's now cookie banners everywhere while my personal data is still going into opaque silos.
- iso1631 4y ago
  > And from what I perceive, there's now cookie banners everywhere while my personal data is still going into opaque silos. Those cookie banners are either non-compliant with the regulations or meaningless. Why people add them is anyones guess.
  - nforgerit 4y ago
    Yeah. Mozilla with their ad-network visualization and browser extensions did more to privacy in practice than any GDPR regulation in which exchanging business cards became some kind of mexican standoff.
  - swores 4y ago
    No that's not true, though it does get spouted very often in online comments. It's true that a cookie banner (notification only) does not equal "the site can now do whatever it wants and is GDPR compliant thanks to the banner". However, cookie notification banners are nothing to do with GDPR! They are to comply with an earlier (but still active after GDPR) bit of legislation, the 2002 'ePrivacy Directive' (sometimes known as the "cookies law"). If you don't go near personal data, but still want to use cookies for website functionality, then GDPR doesn't apply but you need to notify users of your use of cookies. If you are doing stuff that's covered under GDPR, then you obviously need to do more than just a cookie notification, and in most cases doing that 'more' will cover the non-personal cookies too so no need for a separate cookie notification on top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communications_Directive_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communi... edit to be more specific: section (25) includes "Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using." and "Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose." (meaning that unlike with GDPR, it's easier to say "these cookies are necessary, accept them or don't use this website") Full text of that 2002 directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... And usual disclaimer, this is not legal advice, if you're doing anything affected by either the ePrivacy Directive or GDPR you'd do well to do one or both of getting specific advice from a lawyer with specific expertise in this area, and that if it's a personal site (or a company without the money for legal advice), better safe than sorry and better to give users more power (in terms of requiring their consent to use even cookies that might not need explicit opt-in to be legal, etc) than required rather than less. Both better in terms of liability, and in terms of ethics!

Mizoguchi 4y ago

Ironically they seem to be ok with the CCP controlling their telecommunications.

artificialLimbs 4y ago

>> I want competent leadership in politics and business that is able to set up a culture of innovation. I don't really want my government 'innovating' much at all. I want them to provide for defense of the people and freedoms. How many competent government leaders have you seen?

seydor 4y ago
Would you be OK with an AI government that caters to those objectives?
- artificialLimbs 4y ago
  I think a more helpfully formulated question would be "why would I be OK with an AI government that caters to these objectives?"
  - seydor 4y ago
    the AI can prove that it catered to those objectives, isn't that the problem you stated?
    - artificialLimbs 4y ago
      The AI is unaccountable. If the leaders get good ideas from the AI, then cool, let them present them and take responsibility.
      - seydor 4y ago
        accountability does not guarantee future improvement, while an AI can be continuously retrained
        artificialLimbs 4y ago
        AI does not guarantee future improvement either. Humans can also be continuously retrained. I don't understand your point.

ur-whale 4y ago

>Only about 10 years ago I used to be a convinced European from Germany. Hear, hear. How many "accept all cookies" button did you have to press today?

illiarian 4y ago
Please show me which part of GDPR mandates that banner. As additional homework, you can also lookup malicious compliance etc. Or even the sibling discussion on how Facebook wants you to apply for a permission to opt out of their tracking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35383925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35383925
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The banners proliferated after GDPR was instituted. Privacy should have been promoted through technological means, e.g the EU could have funded development of fingerprintless browser technologies, zero-knowledge proof based identity verification, etc, instead of through bureaucratic regimentation of private interaction.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    Same to you: Please show me which part of GDPR mandates that banner. Also, where the GDPR talks about browsers or cookies or gingerprints.
ben_w 4y ago
Far too many. Not, however, on Hacker News, because Hacker News isn't using data for more than actual functionality, and you don't need to ask permission in that case.

squarefoot 4y ago

Convinced European and Italian here. While I feel zero respect for our new corrupt government, this could be a bold, yet necessary, move, provided it is really temporary and motivated by concern about personal data misuse. New developments in AI can offer bad players the most incredibly powerful communication weapon ever created, and although I'd be strongly against any kind of blockage, I can agree that things in that field are progressing too fast and we (as society) need time to fully understand the implications and dangers should it (read: when it will) be used to take advantage of people, and grow the necessary antibodies. edit: minor additions/corrections