4 ms·

One has to assume some level of good faith, or it would be impossible to agree on anything. Plus, if OpenAI lied about this and it became known that they lied,

by Veen 3y ago

One has to assume some level of good faith, or it would be impossible to agree on anything. Plus, if OpenAI lied about this and it became known that they lied, they'd be shut down again and have much harder path back. Every privacy organization across the world would consider them an untrustworthy organization, and all good faith, friendly interaction would end.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> One has to assume some level of good faith From the tech industry which known for its surveillance capitalism? They should be imposing regular audits of the systems as a pre-condition for allowing them to even exist.
p-e-w 3y ago
Technology corporations have been blatantly breaking European law for the past 15 years, and received multiple billion-dollar fines for it. Car manufacturers have committed fraud to deceive regulators into believing their products comply with emission standards. What "good faith" are you talking about?
- avianlyric 3y ago
  Good faith that maybe they fixed it this time, and that even a multi-national company doesn’t have the stones to bold face lie to a government, when they’re under scrutiny for past deception. Without some level of good faith, there’s no path back for organisations. The only acceptable form of remediation would be dissolving the company entirely, which huge impacts on many people. Certainly past regulation has been a little toothless. But laws like GDPR with their maximum set as a percentage of global revenue show that governments are catching up. Those fines can be large enough to inflict real pain and damage to corporations that repeatedly misbehave.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    > Those fines can be large enough to inflict real pain and damage to corporations that repeatedly misbehave. To my knowledge, such a large fine has never been imposed in 5 years, despite rampant noncompliance across the entire industry, including Big Tech, with countless complaints having been filed but gone nowhere.
    - jpalomaki 3y ago
      There’s site tracking the fines: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
      - p-e-w 3y ago
        Already on the first page I found a case (ETid-1788) where the operator of a public toilet was fined for installing a hidden camera inside a toilet stall(!!!) to secretly record people who used it. The fine was 25,000 Euros. That's insane. That business should have been closed down and the responsible person jailed. GDPR enforcement is a joke.
        jpalomaki 3y ago
        This seems to be a fine for an individual, "Accused: A**, born on XXX" https://www-ris-bka-gv-at.translate.goog/Dokumente/Dsk/DSBT_20220823_2022_0_585_764_00/DSBT_20220823_2022_0_585_764_00.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-ris-bka-gv-at.translate.goog/Dokumente/Dsk/DSBT_...
        p-e-w 3y ago
        Individuals don't run public toilets normally. My guess is the accused is the owner of the business that operates those toilets.
        buran77 3y ago
        That fine is just for the GDPR aspect the case. Authorities or the victims would pursue criminal or civil cases against the company or the individual who installed the camera for the other unrelated aspects.
- Veen 3y ago
  None of those organizations are OpenAI, which has yet to establish a history of dishonest dealing. It's not usually a good idea for government agencies to assume that every company in a particular field is maximally dishonest and criminally inclined. The goal is compliance, not punishment. So it's better to give them a chance to comply, a warning, and then prosecute and fine if they continue to flout the rules.
  - largepeepee 3y ago
    Switching entire business models to exploit the market, after receiving goodwill contributions/collaborations under their nonprofit model already sets a bad precedent. So I don't think they have a clean record now, and people are simply wise to be skeptical.
    - dnissley 3y ago
      What reasonable action could they take to satisfy your skepticism?
  - C-x_C-f 3y ago
    > It's not usually a good idea for government agencies to assume that every company in a particular field is maximally dishonest and criminally inclined. Depends what you mean by "maximally." I think it's safe to assume that every company tries to maximize dishonesty after accounting for its cost (i.e. fines).
- cookieperson 3y ago
  Way more than 15 years lol. Corporations skirt laws all the time. In the US they just don't get punished for it because it's bad for the market.
- Tade0 3y ago
  To me it appears to be an indirect form of taxation. While the EU can't make corporations pay their share of taxes, it can at least rely on them willing to break the law rather than change their business model. I don't if that's really the case though.
  - C-x_C-f 3y ago
    That's always a concern with law enforcement. I say "concern" because it creates perverse incentives for the enforcing body. An extreme case is civil forfeiture, where in some states police depts get to keep the lion share of the seized goods.

by Veen 3y ago

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> One has to assume some level of good faith From the tech industry which known for its surveillance capitalism? They should be imposing regular audits of the systems as a pre-condition for allowing them to even exist.

p-e-w 3y ago

Technology corporations have been blatantly breaking European law for the past 15 years, and received multiple billion-dollar fines for it. Car manufacturers have committed fraud to deceive regulators into believing their products comply with emission standards. What "good faith" are you talking about?

avianlyric 3y ago
Good faith that maybe they fixed it this time, and that even a multi-national company doesn’t have the stones to bold face lie to a government, when they’re under scrutiny for past deception. Without some level of good faith, there’s no path back for organisations. The only acceptable form of remediation would be dissolving the company entirely, which huge impacts on many people. Certainly past regulation has been a little toothless. But laws like GDPR with their maximum set as a percentage of global revenue show that governments are catching up. Those fines can be large enough to inflict real pain and damage to corporations that repeatedly misbehave.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > Those fines can be large enough to inflict real pain and damage to corporations that repeatedly misbehave. To my knowledge, such a large fine has never been imposed in 5 years, despite rampant noncompliance across the entire industry, including Big Tech, with countless complaints having been filed but gone nowhere.
  - jpalomaki 3y ago
    There’s site tracking the fines: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
    - p-e-w 3y ago
      Already on the first page I found a case (ETid-1788) where the operator of a public toilet was fined for installing a hidden camera inside a toilet stall(!!!) to secretly record people who used it. The fine was 25,000 Euros. That's insane. That business should have been closed down and the responsible person jailed. GDPR enforcement is a joke.
      - jpalomaki 3y ago
        This seems to be a fine for an individual, "Accused: A**, born on XXX" https://www-ris-bka-gv-at.translate.goog/Dokumente/Dsk/DSBT_20220823_2022_0_585_764_00/DSBT_20220823_2022_0_585_764_00.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-ris-bka-gv-at.translate.goog/Dokumente/Dsk/DSBT_...
        p-e-w 3y ago
        Individuals don't run public toilets normally. My guess is the accused is the owner of the business that operates those toilets.
      - buran77 3y ago
        That fine is just for the GDPR aspect the case. Authorities or the victims would pursue criminal or civil cases against the company or the individual who installed the camera for the other unrelated aspects.
Veen 3y ago
None of those organizations are OpenAI, which has yet to establish a history of dishonest dealing. It's not usually a good idea for government agencies to assume that every company in a particular field is maximally dishonest and criminally inclined. The goal is compliance, not punishment. So it's better to give them a chance to comply, a warning, and then prosecute and fine if they continue to flout the rules.
- largepeepee 3y ago
  Switching entire business models to exploit the market, after receiving goodwill contributions/collaborations under their nonprofit model already sets a bad precedent. So I don't think they have a clean record now, and people are simply wise to be skeptical.
  - dnissley 3y ago
    What reasonable action could they take to satisfy your skepticism?
- C-x_C-f 3y ago
  > It's not usually a good idea for government agencies to assume that every company in a particular field is maximally dishonest and criminally inclined. Depends what you mean by "maximally." I think it's safe to assume that every company tries to maximize dishonesty after accounting for its cost (i.e. fines).
cookieperson 3y ago
Way more than 15 years lol. Corporations skirt laws all the time. In the US they just don't get punished for it because it's bad for the market.
Tade0 3y ago
To me it appears to be an indirect form of taxation. While the EU can't make corporations pay their share of taxes, it can at least rely on them willing to break the law rather than change their business model. I don't if that's really the case though.
- C-x_C-f 3y ago
  That's always a concern with law enforcement. I say "concern" because it creates perverse incentives for the enforcing body. An extreme case is civil forfeiture, where in some states police depts get to keep the lion share of the seized goods.