4 ms·

It's not analoguous, it _IS_ turning data into a liability. It's just more closed in scope than today's topic. > Particularly when the EU laws seem almost expl

It's not analoguous, it _IS_ turning data into a liability. It's just more closed in scope than today's topic. > Particularly when the EU laws seem almost explicitly written to allow for offloading such risks to America and China. I don't know what you refer to with this specifically

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> I don't know what you refer to with this specifically GDPR is a gating function. If you can afford the specific set of qualified lawyers (up to a ridiculous, plutocratic limit the likes of e.g. Google breach), you can legally offload the risks to an offshore server. If you're a tiny competitor, you should be beaten up by funded complaints.
- ginko 1y ago
  >If you can afford the specific set of qualified lawyers (up to a ridiculous, plutocratic limit the likes of e.g. Google breach), you can legally offload the risks to an offshore server. You can't. GDPR also applies to processing EU residents' PII outside of the EU.
- sensanaty 1y ago
  As the other commenter that replied to you said, any data on EU citizens is subject to GDPR and has to be respected. Of course, enforcing that outside of EU borders is a different issue and one I don't think anyone expects to be feasible, but if you're operating within EU borders and have the data of EU citizens, you must comply with GDPR. There's a reason more and more companies are opening up EU-hosted databases.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > if you're operating within EU borders and have the data of EU citizens, you must comply with GDPR Right. There are plenty of foundation model companies in the US and China who would be fine training on European data without operating there. (Or doing it and paying a fine after acquisition.) It's an issue Mistral, for example, has complained about.

4 ms·

It's not analoguous, it _IS_ turning data into a liability. It's just more closed in scope than today's topic. > Particularly when the EU laws seem almost expl

by unicamelkje 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> I don't know what you refer to with this specifically GDPR is a gating function. If you can afford the specific set of qualified lawyers (up to a ridiculous, plutocratic limit the likes of e.g. Google breach), you can legally offload the risks to an offshore server. If you're a tiny competitor, you should be beaten up by funded complaints.
- ginko 1y ago
  >If you can afford the specific set of qualified lawyers (up to a ridiculous, plutocratic limit the likes of e.g. Google breach), you can legally offload the risks to an offshore server. You can't. GDPR also applies to processing EU residents' PII outside of the EU.
- sensanaty 1y ago
  As the other commenter that replied to you said, any data on EU citizens is subject to GDPR and has to be respected. Of course, enforcing that outside of EU borders is a different issue and one I don't think anyone expects to be feasible, but if you're operating within EU borders and have the data of EU citizens, you must comply with GDPR. There's a reason more and more companies are opening up EU-hosted databases.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > if you're operating within EU borders and have the data of EU citizens, you must comply with GDPR Right. There are plenty of foundation model companies in the US and China who would be fine training on European data without operating there. (Or doing it and paying a fine after acquisition.) It's an issue Mistral, for example, has complained about.