YouTube/Google just wants straight out control and making our life hell
1 Like
So long as they continue playing the music I want to listen to without actually playing any sound at all I think we are safe from complete YouTube domination.
Google have always wanted control, in point of fact they accomplished complete control several decades ago. “Don’t be evil” was never an affirmation, it was a warning.
2 Likes
A confirmation that bans regarding misinformation on YT were based on government intervention, even when the platform did not confirm content was actually misinformation and would have passed the site’s TOS. People banned there are asked to come back.
I don’t believe that users can invoke the TOS at all when it gets serious. The Covid rules were part of them and now yet again political influence retroactively reverts them. The political wind keeps changing and users are the leafs.
I just wish things were more transparent and laws/courts were needed to force platforms to do such big changes.
Then again I am no American and have no influence either way.
I want to note that I am not in favor of allowing misinformation, but I am in favor of state pressure having to be legitimized beforehand. Though I admit I may not grasp all legislative tools the US gov has and probably it was somehow “legitimate” for Biden and maybe soon Trump to do these things.
4 Likes
German lobbyists try to weaken the European GDPR to a great extend to make it easier for companies to use private data to train AI.
It seems that the Commission plans to significantly narrow the definition of “personal data” – which would result in the GDPR not applying in many cases. The plan is to add a “subjective approach” in the text of the GDPR. This would mean that if a specific company cannot identify a person, the data is not “personal” for that company – and the GDPR ceases to apply.
The Commission’s draft also foresees changes to Article 6(1) and 9(2) GDPR to allow the processing of personal data for AI. This means that a high-risk technology, fueled by people’s most personal thoughts and sensitive data, gets a general “OK” under the GDPR.
Article 9 GDPR specifically protects “sensitive” data regarding people’s health, political believes, sex life, sexual orientation or trade union membership. So far, the CJEU held that such information is also protected if it can only be deducted from other information. The Commission now tries to overturn the law and wants to limit Article 9 protections only if such sensitive information is “directly revealed”.
However, people who “directly reveal” that they are pregnant, have cancer or are gay usually need this protection less than people about whom such sensitive information can only be “deducted” from other information.
So far, Article 5(3) ePrivacy has protected users against remote access of data stored on “terminal equipment”, such as computers or smartphones. This is based on the right to protection of communication under Article 7 of the Charter and made sure that companies cannot “remotely search” devices.
However, the Commission proposal now allows - depending on the reading of the draft - up to 10 (!) legal bases to pull information from a personal device - or place tracking technology on your device (such as “cookies”).
Full article on the leaked draft: (note you can pick numerous languages at the top of the site)
7 Likes
More sad EU legislation news.
The chat control, something I posted about here from time to time, never made it to the vote because the supporter waited for enough prior signals that it will not be rejected.
With every new presidency of the EU council, the current 6 months is Denmark, it was attempted to get through but there was always enough opposition. It is a highly undemocratic behavior to not allow it to be rejected in a vote if you ask me.
“Hold my beer” Denmark said and now try to push it through in a different approach:
More extreme even, now again with AI powered and maybe client-side surveillance.
It is very hard to understand the process, I have to look it up each time as these articles sadly never explain it well.
As far I understand it, so far the legislative process was like this:
- Commission proposal of chat control in 2022
- The parliament declare their position of the proposal
- The council declares their position
- Trilogue negotiations comission/parliament/council
- Final vote of the parliament
So far, 2. and 3. did not find much support for chat control and without a common position in at least each of the two, trilogue could never really start.
Denmark now changed the approach:
- The council attempts again to find a common position, however the new draft hides many bad aspects behind the phrase of “voluntary scanning” while it still implicitly will require legally bound scanning. This way it is now easier for the council members to just agree on the proposal.
- With the common position of the council the trilogue can start, regardless if the pariament being against it. However, only the debate in the parliament is fully public, the one within the council and trilogue is behind closed doors. Traditionally in this step the debate ended and a final text is made. The parliament followed compromises in the past and is more likely to accept a text in some form.
- After the trilogue, the final vote happens without much discussion. No more changes, only yes and no. And as the parliament is part of the trilogue, almost every EU law passes this in the first or second attempt. Only ~0.2% of all laws in the last 25 years were rejected. The most famous one that was rejected here was ACTA. Oh what a glorious day that was…
The main opposing member in the council that could block this is Germany. I will try to contact Nancy Faeser (Federal Minister of the Homeland Affairs in Germany) and Lisa Paus (Federal Minister for Family Affairs in Germany) to not buckle. But I am not super optimistic.
4 Likes
