201 ms·

> I can look out my window and straight into my neighbour's bathroom. Is that public information? Yes. And there have been numerous court cases confirming this

> I can look out my window and straight into my neighbour's bathroom. Is that public information? Yes. And there have been numerous court cases confirming this (why we have paparazzi taking topless photos on people on private beaches from public vantage points). I think this is a feature, not a bug, as without a straightforward rule I don’t know how society solves this without causing more harm. If something is public, it’s public. Restricting you from looking in your neighbors open window isn’t something that can realistically be “fixed.” Other than if I don’t want my neighbor to look in, I draw the blinds. This works for paupers and billionaires. If I don’t want people to see things, I don’t make them public. I can’t set a limit of “only people making less than $20k are allowed to view this.”

dawnerd 3y ago
What if someone leaks info is that public now? What if someone shares my private info without permission? Should Google be allowed to train on it? How would their systems know? What about pirated other illegal content? The lines are not quite as clear to computers.
- prepend 3y ago
  IANAL, but leaking is a crime, accessing once public is not. There was a lot of this back during the height of Wikileaks where there were questions about reading classified material being a crime. It is, but once it’s leaked, it is no longer classified, so public. So the crime would be on the leaker, not on Google for training on it.
  - dawnerd 3y ago
    But the question is should google train against it not if it’s legal. Just because it’s public doesn’t mean you have the right to use it, I think that’s the real question we’ll need to figure out.
  - snerbles 3y ago
    IANAL either, but I have held a security clearance and this is very dangerous advice. Unless explicitly declassified the leaked information remains classified, and those who hold security clearances are legally required to avoid all classified information outside of their need-to-know [0]. Now if you have never held a U.S. security clearance, you're less likely to be prosecuted but the history and precedent is murky [1]. The average Joe Sixpack checking out Wikileaks is probably safe, but if I were a journalist publishing the next round of Pentagon Papers I would much rather have a small army of lawyers and a friend or two in Congress. EDIT - Google has federal contracts, so they are probably bound by similar agreements to at least make an effort to avoid any such leaks in their training data for public-facing models. [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1207/US-to-federal-workers-If-you-read-WikiLeaks-you-re-breaking-the-law https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1207/US-to... [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521009791/q-could-u-s-prosecute-reporters-for-classified-scoops-a-maybe https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521009791...
    - prepend 3y ago
      I have a security clearance and the guidance I received (and was explicitly asked about during my recertification), is that I cannot view Wikileaks at all, and any classified material leaked there. So I didn’t view Wikileaks or any material as I don’t want to lose my clearance. But the question was about whether it’s legal or not to view leaked material. Security clearances are a different matter and are going a step beyond what’s legal or admissible in court or what someone would be prosecuted for.
humanistbot 3y ago
> Yes. And there have been numerous court cases confirming this In the US. It is different in the EU. I know HN is US-centric, but tech is global and there are more people in the EU than the US.
- adventured 3y ago
  > but tech is global and there are more people in the EU than the US Why would population number be the determining factor on anything? The world obviously doesn't operate based on direct democracy. India having 1.4 billion people doesn't give it a greater ability to dictate anything vs the EU, US or China. It comes down to power (always will, always has). For example, the US - for now - has the ability to dictate certain things to China on trade restrictions, given the US technology advantage. China is a legitimate superpower economically, has four times the population, and yet the US can still do that. If the premise is consumer numbers: the US still has the EU beat even with fewer consumers, with a far larger, far more valuable economy. Besides all of that, naturally each country (or as a union), to the extent it can, will attempt to set its own rules for tech. The US will do so, the EU will do so, China will do so, etc.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    I can't think of a better metric than individual count.
- halJordan 3y ago
  What are the substantial differences? (I dont think there are)
littlestymaar 3y ago
> > I can look out my window and straight into my neighbour's bathroom. Is that public information? > Yes Not in my country at least, but if you will I van suggest another exemple: does broadcasting a movie or a song through to the public make it public good? No. We have laws (highly variable between jurisdictions) that set the rules for these “published data”, and they are actually dependent on manu factors including whether or not you're making money out of it (you can lend a DVD to your friend for free, but you cannot start a DVD-renting business without a licence from the copyright owners).
- prepend 3y ago
  > broadcasting a movie or a song through to the public make it public good Movies and songs are copyrighted and can’t be rebroadcast or copied without license. But viewing is perfectly legal and does not require a license. And you can certainly start a DVD-renting business without a license from copyright holders (assuming you bought the DVD). You can’t start a dvd streaming business without a license.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > Movies and songs are copyrighted and can’t be rebroadcast or copied without license. But viewing is perfectly legal and does not require a license. That's exactly the point: “publishing” something only gives you some limited rights (an in certain jurisdictions like mine, most of these rights are limited to individuals only, and organizations are excluded). > And you can certainly start a DVD-renting business without a license from copyright holders (assuming you bought the DVD) Not in my country, again.
    - prepend 3y ago
      What country are you in? It sounds unusual that you can’t sell property that you’ve bought (a DVD). Publishing are rights for the publisher, not the viewer. As a viewer, I can view the material and don’t have restrictions on whether I can remember it or not (ie, run it through an algorithm to train a model as part of the viewing).
abwizz 3y ago
> paparazzi taking topless photos on people on private beaches from public vantage points this is illegal almost everywhere. e.g. in germany it is even illegal to take a picture of a person (one specific) in a public space without their consent (unless they are a person of public interest).
- VirusNewbie 3y ago
  so if I take a picture of my wife on vacation in germany with someone in the background I'm breaking the law?
  - nicbou 3y ago
    There are clear exceptions for people who happen to be in the picture.
  - mxscho 3y ago
    Not necessarily, as there are other exceptions to this rule. A person can also be "Beiwerk" [1] (= accessory/props) which in the context of personality rights means that you are not the main focus point of the picture. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiwerk https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiwerk
- prepend 3y ago
  As long as the photo is taken from a public location, it is legal almost everywhere. US [0] “ In the United States, photographs that are taken for editorial use in a public place generally enjoy Constitutional protection under the right of free speech.” Denmark [1] “ you can almost without restrictions shoot anything as long as what you're seeing is visible from public property. You are allowed to shoot people, including police officers or other government officials.” In Germany [2], you can photograph people from public locations but not if they are nude or vulnerable or in their home. “ You can’t take photos of people if it shows their helplessness.1 For example, you can’t take photos of accident victims, drunk people or nude people without their permission.” [0] https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-are-the-laws-regarding-paparazzi-31179 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-are-the-laws-regardin... [1] https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-denmark https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-denma...
scrum-treats 3y ago
This is why situations like VisualMic and visual-based cryptoanalysis tools are troublesome (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36331446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36331446). All you need is a decent smartphone (e.g., Samsung Galaxy S22) and open-source software. Quite a vulnerable place humans are in at present.

dawnerd 3y ago

What if someone leaks info is that public now? What if someone shares my private info without permission? Should Google be allowed to train on it? How would their systems know? What about pirated other illegal content? The lines are not quite as clear to computers.

prepend 3y ago
IANAL, but leaking is a crime, accessing once public is not. There was a lot of this back during the height of Wikileaks where there were questions about reading classified material being a crime. It is, but once it’s leaked, it is no longer classified, so public. So the crime would be on the leaker, not on Google for training on it.
- dawnerd 3y ago
  But the question is should google train against it not if it’s legal. Just because it’s public doesn’t mean you have the right to use it, I think that’s the real question we’ll need to figure out.
- snerbles 3y ago
  IANAL either, but I have held a security clearance and this is very dangerous advice. Unless explicitly declassified the leaked information remains classified, and those who hold security clearances are legally required to avoid all classified information outside of their need-to-know [0]. Now if you have never held a U.S. security clearance, you're less likely to be prosecuted but the history and precedent is murky [1]. The average Joe Sixpack checking out Wikileaks is probably safe, but if I were a journalist publishing the next round of Pentagon Papers I would much rather have a small army of lawyers and a friend or two in Congress. EDIT - Google has federal contracts, so they are probably bound by similar agreements to at least make an effort to avoid any such leaks in their training data for public-facing models. [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1207/US-to-federal-workers-If-you-read-WikiLeaks-you-re-breaking-the-law https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1207/US-to... [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521009791/q-could-u-s-prosecute-reporters-for-classified-scoops-a-maybe https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521009791...
  - prepend 3y ago
    I have a security clearance and the guidance I received (and was explicitly asked about during my recertification), is that I cannot view Wikileaks at all, and any classified material leaked there. So I didn’t view Wikileaks or any material as I don’t want to lose my clearance. But the question was about whether it’s legal or not to view leaked material. Security clearances are a different matter and are going a step beyond what’s legal or admissible in court or what someone would be prosecuted for.

humanistbot 3y ago

> Yes. And there have been numerous court cases confirming this In the US. It is different in the EU. I know HN is US-centric, but tech is global and there are more people in the EU than the US.

adventured 3y ago
> but tech is global and there are more people in the EU than the US Why would population number be the determining factor on anything? The world obviously doesn't operate based on direct democracy. India having 1.4 billion people doesn't give it a greater ability to dictate anything vs the EU, US or China. It comes down to power (always will, always has). For example, the US - for now - has the ability to dictate certain things to China on trade restrictions, given the US technology advantage. China is a legitimate superpower economically, has four times the population, and yet the US can still do that. If the premise is consumer numbers: the US still has the EU beat even with fewer consumers, with a far larger, far more valuable economy. Besides all of that, naturally each country (or as a union), to the extent it can, will attempt to set its own rules for tech. The US will do so, the EU will do so, China will do so, etc.
- flangola7 3y ago
  I can't think of a better metric than individual count.
halJordan 3y ago
What are the substantial differences? (I dont think there are)

littlestymaar 3y ago

> > I can look out my window and straight into my neighbour's bathroom. Is that public information? > Yes Not in my country at least, but if you will I van suggest another exemple: does broadcasting a movie or a song through to the public make it public good? No. We have laws (highly variable between jurisdictions) that set the rules for these “published data”, and they are actually dependent on manu factors including whether or not you're making money out of it (you can lend a DVD to your friend for free, but you cannot start a DVD-renting business without a licence from the copyright owners).

prepend 3y ago
> broadcasting a movie or a song through to the public make it public good Movies and songs are copyrighted and can’t be rebroadcast or copied without license. But viewing is perfectly legal and does not require a license. And you can certainly start a DVD-renting business without a license from copyright holders (assuming you bought the DVD). You can’t start a dvd streaming business without a license.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > Movies and songs are copyrighted and can’t be rebroadcast or copied without license. But viewing is perfectly legal and does not require a license. That's exactly the point: “publishing” something only gives you some limited rights (an in certain jurisdictions like mine, most of these rights are limited to individuals only, and organizations are excluded). > And you can certainly start a DVD-renting business without a license from copyright holders (assuming you bought the DVD) Not in my country, again.
  - prepend 3y ago
    What country are you in? It sounds unusual that you can’t sell property that you’ve bought (a DVD). Publishing are rights for the publisher, not the viewer. As a viewer, I can view the material and don’t have restrictions on whether I can remember it or not (ie, run it through an algorithm to train a model as part of the viewing).

abwizz 3y ago

> paparazzi taking topless photos on people on private beaches from public vantage points this is illegal almost everywhere. e.g. in germany it is even illegal to take a picture of a person (one specific) in a public space without their consent (unless they are a person of public interest).

VirusNewbie 3y ago
so if I take a picture of my wife on vacation in germany with someone in the background I'm breaking the law?
- nicbou 3y ago
  There are clear exceptions for people who happen to be in the picture.
- mxscho 3y ago
  Not necessarily, as there are other exceptions to this rule. A person can also be "Beiwerk" [1] (= accessory/props) which in the context of personality rights means that you are not the main focus point of the picture. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiwerk https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiwerk
prepend 3y ago
As long as the photo is taken from a public location, it is legal almost everywhere. US [0] “ In the United States, photographs that are taken for editorial use in a public place generally enjoy Constitutional protection under the right of free speech.” Denmark [1] “ you can almost without restrictions shoot anything as long as what you're seeing is visible from public property. You are allowed to shoot people, including police officers or other government officials.” In Germany [2], you can photograph people from public locations but not if they are nude or vulnerable or in their home. “ You can’t take photos of people if it shows their helplessness.1 For example, you can’t take photos of accident victims, drunk people or nude people without their permission.” [0] https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-are-the-laws-regarding-paparazzi-31179 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-are-the-laws-regardin... [1] https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-denmark https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-denma...

scrum-treats 3y ago

This is why situations like VisualMic and visual-based cryptoanalysis tools are troublesome (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36331446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36331446). All you need is a decent smartphone (e.g., Samsung Galaxy S22) and open-source software. Quite a vulnerable place humans are in at present.