Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 709 posts

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#171

Post by revelio »

saliagato wrote: post #147
revelio wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already stopped using chats as training material for everyone anyway, so if that's the basis for the ban then it's already wrong. But what do you expect? This is exactly the kind of problem people have constantly pointed out with the GDPR. It's vague, has many unintended consequences, massively empowers low-competence regulatory regimes and constantly interferes with innovation and new tech. The EU will continue…

How is this ban vague? Have you read the full announcement?[1] Here are the reasons: DETECTED, from a check carried out in this regard, that no information is provided to users, nor to interested parties whose data has been collected by OpenAI, L.L.C. and processed through the ChatGPT service; NOTING the absence of an appropriate legal basis in relation to the collection of personal data and their processing for the…

Verbosity isn't the same thing as precision. The judgement is both vague and inconsistent, as GDPR related things always are. They don't want OpenAI using personal data for training, which it doesn't do anyway, unless they mean the entire original training set which - as they themselves note - they can't prove contains personal data of Italians (which they mean is unclear due to vagueness), but at the same time they are banning it for not collecting enough personal data.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#172

Post by realce »

sorokod wrote: post #155
SanderNL wrote: post #125

'exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."' So do (certain) books. That's another issue right? If you let your minor access stuff, they.. access stuff. Hard to control? I know and it is. How is this specific to OpenAI?

Do you see the qualitative difference between all of the following that can cause harm: * a box of matches * a handgun * an assault rifle * a 50 cal BMG * an ICBM with nuclear MIRV Saying that X has a property similar to the one Y has while ignoring the magnitude of the difference is silly.

So which of these represents the chatbot?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#173

Post by revelio »

br1brown wrote: post #156
revelio wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the Italian authorities will be pleased to know that the bug is already fixed, and thus there's nothing for them to do. Unless GDPR is now being interpreted as a general obligation to never write bugs, in which case, they will have plenty to do going after European firms because it's not like there's a shortage of buggy software in the world.

it may have been resolved, but while making the account I - Italian - did not give consent to the dissemination of MY data, and that is not in accordance with the GDPR now I am not saying that they have to stop making use of my data, but at least notify me how and where my of phone is being used?

They do notify you and explain it:

https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6613520-phone-verificati...

This is also covered under the "consent" lawful basis part of the GDPR.

The bug is not a problem. GDPR covers data leaks. If you're an EU company you have to inform your DPA within 72 hours, and the users affected. It's not illegal to have such breaches. OpenAI isn't an EU company so doesn't have a DPA, but it did notify everyone that the leak occurred anyway.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#174

Post by vincnetas »

nemo44x wrote: post #158
Zurrrrr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reportedly some of the happiest people on earth They seem pretty far from the Scandinavian countries. Besides, I'd find it hard to trust any results from a totalitarian country. > It sounds insane to you because you’re used to the filth we live in and don’t even see the decay that’s all around us anymore. Crime and violence are normal in our world and a government that won’t tolerate it is a foreign concept. There…

[flagged]

Had to read about suicides in Singapore. I could not believe this, but apparently suicides were ILEGAL in Singapore until recently :

Suicide was decriminalised in Singapore with the passing of the Criminal Law Reform Bill on 6 May 2019.

Before that, Section 309 of the Penal Code stated that "Whoever attempts to commit suicide, and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."[13] The section was rarely enforced, between 2013 and 2015, only 0.6% of reported cases was brought to court.[

Makes you really think about executing your idea successfully. And also probably no point i hoping for suicide prevention hotline.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#176

Post by collegeburner »

nemo44x wrote: post #158
Zurrrrr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reportedly some of the happiest people on earth They seem pretty far from the Scandinavian countries. Besides, I'd find it hard to trust any results from a totalitarian country. > It sounds insane to you because you’re used to the filth we live in and don’t even see the decay that’s all around us anymore. Crime and violence are normal in our world and a government that won’t tolerate it is a foreign concept. There…

[flagged]

no we just value some things over more than others. like freedom above safety. that is a conscious and reasonable tradeoff we are happy to make. like i am happier living in a place that has higher rates of violent crime if that is the price for increased liberty.

assuming that what you value is the only right option - who's the chauvinist here?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#177

Post by mattrighetti »

thefz wrote: post #50
baxtr wrote: post #41

Saying this as a European: Whenever I visit Italy, I love the food, I love the people, I love the weather and the beaches. However, I often sense that in many places, the country seems to be entrenched in its medieval past. This decision will not accelerate Italy's progress towards a more prosperous future.

I am actually very happy about this. If you like to have no protection over how big corporate treats your data as your own, and ingests whatever whenever they need to profit off your personal information, be my guest. But I am happy to have a watchdog over my basic human rights. > However, I often sense that in many places, the country seems to be entrenched in its medieval past. It might be. But not on this front.

> If you like to have no protection over how big corporate treats your data as your own, and ingests whatever whenever they need to profit off your personal information, be my guest.

As long as they're transparent on what they're doing with the data I'm totally okay with it, nobody is forcing you to use ChatGPT.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#178

Post by quadcore »

thefz wrote: post #90
quadcore wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is a totally commendable position but I also believe that you're naive about this ruling. I think this is the power classes freaking out someone might be eating their lunch or discovering their dirty secrets. For example, what if some italians uses chatgpt and leak things you dont wanna know about italy? That, I believe would prompt otherwise slow-to-act politicians to jump off their rocking-chairs and…

That is taking conspirationism to a whole new level.

Okay lets take an example. Do you think the Vatican likes chatgpt?

Lets ask chatgpt what he think about sex:

"It is important to protect oneself during sexual activities to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted pregnancies. Using condoms or other forms of contraception can greatly reduce the risk of transmission and unplanned pregnancy.

Additionally, it is important to communicate openly and honestly with sexual partners about sexual health and STI status, and to get tested regularly for STIs, especially if one is sexually active with multiple partners.

Ultimately, the decision to protect oneself during sexual activities is a personal one that depends on individual circumstances and preferences. However, it is generally recommended that individuals take steps to protect themselves and their sexual partners from potential health risks."

I especially liked the "multiple partners" part didnt you?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#179

Post by SanderNL »

sorokod wrote: post #155
SanderNL wrote: post #125

'exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."' So do (certain) books. That's another issue right? If you let your minor access stuff, they.. access stuff. Hard to control? I know and it is. How is this specific to OpenAI?

Do you see the qualitative difference between all of the following that can cause harm: * a box of matches * a handgun * an assault rifle * a 50 cal BMG * an ICBM with nuclear MIRV Saying that X has a property similar to the one Y has while ignoring the magnitude of the difference is silly.

Your point is GPT is way more dangerous?

I guess I can be nonchalant about this topic. For me personally I cannot imagine something worse than either books or anything you can already access on the internet. To me it is not an assault rifle as you say, but I understand that's just an opinion.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#180

Post by jacquesm »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #136
jacquesm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll wait to see how it holds up when the EU tries to enforce it against a US website with no presence of any kind in the EU. That's called moving the goalposts. But even in that case: the EU has a lot of power and no matter what you are still required to have a legal presence in the EU if you want to serve EU customers. Breaking the law is generally not the best course of action for any company that wants to stay…

> That's called moving the goalposts. No, it isn't. That's the test. > no matter what you are still required to have a legal presence in the EU if you want to serve EU customers. That's nonsense. There is nothing stopping EU citizens from buying something via my US based website while they are in the EU, and I have no obligation to have any kind of presence in the EU.

> That's nonsense. There is nothing stopping EU citizens from buying something via my US based website while they are in the EU, and I have no obligation to have any kind of presence in the EU.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/dp-at-the-end-of-the-tr...

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-27-gdpr/

You seem to be arguing from how you believe it should work or how you think it works without knowing how it actually works, which is quite important when you are operating a business.

Post reply on HN