Archived link

Opinionated article by Alexander Hanff, a computer scientist and privacy technologist who helped develop Europe’s GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and ePrivacy rules.

We cannot allow Big Tech to continue to ignore our fundamental human rights. Had such an approach been taken 25 years ago in relation to privacy and data protection, arguably we would not have the situation we have to today, where some platforms routinely ignore their legal obligations at the detriment of society.

Legislators did not understand the impact of weak laws or weak enforcement 25 years ago, but we have enough hindsight now to ensure we don’t make the same mistakes moving forward. The time to regulate unlawful AI training is now, and we must learn from mistakes past to ensure that we provide effective deterrents and consequences to such ubiquitous law breaking in the future.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
22 points

Yeah, the only threat to Big Tech is that they might sink a lot of money into training material they’d have to give away later. But releasing the material into the Public Domain is not exactly an improvement for the people whose data and work has been used without consent or payment.

“Congratulations, your rights are still being violated, but now the data is free to use for everyone”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They would actually still benefit from public-domain’ing LLMs, because they themselves also get to use the data produced by others. Everyone gets losses but also gets gains on this idea, which is much better than current model.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s like saying victims of deepfake porn benefit because they get to watch themselves having sex. Nope, not buying it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Well, the better analogy would be that these victims would be able to do deepfake porn of their enemies too, or any other generated video that can compromise he-she too. Instead of the status quo of the victim not being able to generate anything while the criminal can just mass produce deepfake porn. Not really a happy world, but a better model, which was the point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Whether rights have been violated depends on the jurisdiction, of course.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Semantics. If person A is protected by privacy rights in her jurisdiction, but her data is scraped by project B from one where such rights conveniently aren’t legally respected, A should still be able to expect some way of injunction.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.9K

    Posts

  • 12K

    Comments