4 ms·

The “right to be forgotten” is an explicit right in the EU, which I think applies here.

by stingraycharles 3y ago

constantly 3y ago
EU rights do not apply in the US.
- dantheman 3y ago
  The 'right to be forgotten' isn't a right.
- niemandhier 3y ago
  True but globally operating corps are subjects to all kind of national laws and as soon as you have any presence in the EU those regulations apply. An online shop in Germany once removed Cuban cigars because of US trade sanctions. ClearView just declared to ignore the right to be forgotten, even for EU citizens. It will be interesting to se how this plays out. I guess it will take a few years…
- muspimerol 3y ago
  No one is implying that. But companies have to comply with laws in jurisdictions where they operate. OpenAI and other generative AI companies certainly operate in the EU.
qweqwe14 3y ago
I'm not saying that this right is a bad thing, but the reality is that it's rarely enforceable. As soon as you put something on the internet, you have every "right" to expect that it's there forever. No amount of legislation can outweigh the technical reality.
- esafak 3y ago
  The government has no problem getting rid of CSAM and terrorist material, for practical purposes. It's not a technical problem.
  - qweqwe14 3y ago
    They only get rid of those materials that they can seize. I doubt they will be able to seize a properly hosted onion domain. It's just that most of the actors aren't good enough with technology. That's the reason you mostly see the pretty dumb guys getting caught. As long as you are smarter and more tech-savvy than 80% of the criminals, you are pretty much out of reach for the feds.
  - 627467 3y ago
    It is obviously a technical challenge. Image yourself trying to facing 3 pictures, one of CSAM, another of terrorist material and just some random photo of random guy eating ice scream: what steps would you do to determine if this last photo is "legal" or not? YouTube have decades of attempt at determining if uploaded content violates copyright, normally through fingerprinting content submitted by right holders. YouTube still fails at catching all copyright infringement. That's why they are generally protected from prosecution while they demonstrate reasonable attempt that preventing their services from being misused. Imagine ALL IMAGES IN THE WORLD being submitted for fingerprinting. How about malicious or erroneous submitions that taint datasets? Also: right to be forgotten is a horrible misleading name. At most you have right to request data to be removed from datasets. And only if you have some legal basis that demonstrate that your data is in that dataset. It is not a right to be "forgotten". Imagine you yourself being told to "forget an image, sound, etc", how is this enforced? You may even ask for proof that you know the content you are being told to forget. How do you do this?
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      If you have the image and the person reaches out saying it’s them and they want it removed, you have a pretty good idea of the legality. As stated, this isn’t a technical problem it’s a bureaucratic one. Most companies didn’t think they had to remove it so didn’t have steps in place to do so. Now a lot of them do, with GenAI just being the latest group of companies who feel they have an argument in favor of not having to do so.
    - fullspectrumdev 3y ago
      The “right to be forgotten” works nicely in tandem with the “right to know” - where you get to ask companies to tell you what they have on you.
- muspimerol 3y ago
  > As soon as you put something on the internet, you have every "right" to expect that it's there forever. Maybe realistically any uploaded content can be found somewhere on the internet forever (I doubt that, tbh), but this doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and say "it's impossible to regulate". We already have precedent for this in the form of copyright/DMCA takedown requests. The MPA/RIAA has a legal avenue to protect their content, why should it be any different for individuals?
valianteffort 3y ago
Americans are not bound by EU laws. We appreciate forcing iPhone to USB-C, but you can keep the rest of your authoritarian laws.

The “right to be forgotten” is an explicit right in the EU, which I think applies here.

constantly 3y ago

EU rights do not apply in the US.

dantheman 3y ago
The 'right to be forgotten' isn't a right.
niemandhier 3y ago
True but globally operating corps are subjects to all kind of national laws and as soon as you have any presence in the EU those regulations apply. An online shop in Germany once removed Cuban cigars because of US trade sanctions. ClearView just declared to ignore the right to be forgotten, even for EU citizens. It will be interesting to se how this plays out. I guess it will take a few years…
muspimerol 3y ago
No one is implying that. But companies have to comply with laws in jurisdictions where they operate. OpenAI and other generative AI companies certainly operate in the EU.

qweqwe14 3y ago

I'm not saying that this right is a bad thing, but the reality is that it's rarely enforceable. As soon as you put something on the internet, you have every "right" to expect that it's there forever. No amount of legislation can outweigh the technical reality.

esafak 3y ago
The government has no problem getting rid of CSAM and terrorist material, for practical purposes. It's not a technical problem.
- qweqwe14 3y ago
  They only get rid of those materials that they can seize. I doubt they will be able to seize a properly hosted onion domain. It's just that most of the actors aren't good enough with technology. That's the reason you mostly see the pretty dumb guys getting caught. As long as you are smarter and more tech-savvy than 80% of the criminals, you are pretty much out of reach for the feds.
- 627467 3y ago
  It is obviously a technical challenge. Image yourself trying to facing 3 pictures, one of CSAM, another of terrorist material and just some random photo of random guy eating ice scream: what steps would you do to determine if this last photo is "legal" or not? YouTube have decades of attempt at determining if uploaded content violates copyright, normally through fingerprinting content submitted by right holders. YouTube still fails at catching all copyright infringement. That's why they are generally protected from prosecution while they demonstrate reasonable attempt that preventing their services from being misused. Imagine ALL IMAGES IN THE WORLD being submitted for fingerprinting. How about malicious or erroneous submitions that taint datasets? Also: right to be forgotten is a horrible misleading name. At most you have right to request data to be removed from datasets. And only if you have some legal basis that demonstrate that your data is in that dataset. It is not a right to be "forgotten". Imagine you yourself being told to "forget an image, sound, etc", how is this enforced? You may even ask for proof that you know the content you are being told to forget. How do you do this?
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    If you have the image and the person reaches out saying it’s them and they want it removed, you have a pretty good idea of the legality. As stated, this isn’t a technical problem it’s a bureaucratic one. Most companies didn’t think they had to remove it so didn’t have steps in place to do so. Now a lot of them do, with GenAI just being the latest group of companies who feel they have an argument in favor of not having to do so.
  - fullspectrumdev 3y ago
    The “right to be forgotten” works nicely in tandem with the “right to know” - where you get to ask companies to tell you what they have on you.
muspimerol 3y ago
> As soon as you put something on the internet, you have every "right" to expect that it's there forever. Maybe realistically any uploaded content can be found somewhere on the internet forever (I doubt that, tbh), but this doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and say "it's impossible to regulate". We already have precedent for this in the form of copyright/DMCA takedown requests. The MPA/RIAA has a legal avenue to protect their content, why should it be any different for individuals?

valianteffort 3y ago

Americans are not bound by EU laws. We appreciate forcing iPhone to USB-C, but you can keep the rest of your authoritarian laws.