- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- privacy@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52834195
“If adopted, these amendments would not simplify compliance but hollow out the GDPR’s and ePrivacy’s core guarantees: purpose limitation, accountability, and independent oversight,” Itxaso Dominguez de Olazabal, from the European Digital Rights group, told EUobserver.
The draft includes adjustments to what is considered “personal data,” a key component of the GDPR and protected by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
As if the GDPR was a barrier to IP theft
Did you read the article? It says that making AI training easier is a key purpose of these changes.
Why should any of us approve of making things easier for technofascists?
Why do you presume that all AI advancement is purely by technofascists?
The kind of “AI advancement” that requires stripping away privacy rights is definitely done by technofascists.
Did I say you should approve of it? I’m just explaining why it comes as no surprise to me.
And my point was they’re already doing this in the face of regulation.
Sounds like the problem is lack of enforcement of the existing laws rather than the existing laws being bad.
To provide an extreme example, just because there’s a wave of murders doesn’t mean murder should be made legal.
See, my first thought would be to crack down on the tech parasites that are ruining out society instead of changing the law to accommodate them. But I’m just a dumb American who lives in a place where corporations are allowed to do whatever they want including killing whistleblowers, but I’m sure that the fascist parties taking power in Europe won’t do that.
Then why change the rules? The article’s author seems quite convinced that this will make AI training easier.
Because they want to strip the right to privacy so they can better monetize
Naive to think the GDPR is stopping anyone now.
So again, why change the rules? If the GDPR is already ineffective there’s no need to loosen it more.
Are you asking me why some in Europe want to make it legal? Because they’re already doing it, just they want to make it legal
Make sense?
If they’re already doing it then no change is necessary. So why change it?
If making it legal makes it easier for them to do, then that was my original point. That’s why I think they’re making the change.
Because laws are supposed to have teeth and consequences There is zero doubt that everything public on the internet or otherwise is consumed and aggregated by these companies; you still don’t understand why weakening regulations benefits them?