Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually this way of thinking is called "benaltrismo".
I saw you commented something like this in this thread > These huge companies need to stops behaving like they own the world. How would you call that?
[deleted]
Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
251–260 of 709 posts
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#252Saying 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 bet your country is backwards and "medieval" in a bunch of places. What you said is a meaningless tautology
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#253Gosh. Only about 10 years ago I used to be a convinced European from Germany. The last couple of years I started having my doubts that the EU will ever find its own legit style of handling tech concerns. Everything is crumbling and we still see deeply arrogant leadership seemingly trying to bs their way through the current turmoil. And what do they do? Regulate ChatGPT, try to introduce mass-surveillance through #cha…
But this is a domestic regulator, making a domestic finding.
This isn't an EU level decision. Countries in the EU have a lot of control over their own affairs, as they should.
Conflating EU and Domestic policies is a bad thing (this was done a lot in the UK)
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#254Writing from rome, italy. These bureaucrats only pretend to work. The number of privacy violations in italy is staggering, i have to take 10 calls a day from power companies because they have access to all the phone number of anybody who has a gas or energy contract. I had to change phone numbers. Meanwhile they are going against a service that as far as i know does not even require your name to serve you.
I am also writing from Italy. In the last few months I have received so many spam calls from UK numbers that I have been forced to ban the whole of Britain from my phone. Good job Data Protection authority.
Report from Germany: Haven't received a spam call in years.
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, this is a good move. These huge companies need to stops behaving like they own the world.
These huge governments need to stop behaving like they own the citizens
Those Governments are operating purportedly on behalf of their citizens. It is not they that need to justify themselves worthy of recognition and the privilege of doing business within the jurisdiction.
As Mom used to put it: The world ain't gonna change to accommodate you. You must adapt to it. When in Rome; pick 1:
Do as the Romans
embrace the consequences of non-compliance
GTFO
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#256Europe on top of innovation once again. Watch out US and China! /s (I say this as a French citizen)
About once a week I consider dropping out of the tech industry and becoming a politician just so I don't have to sit and watch by the sidelines as incompetent, ignorant people, who studied humanities with not a drop a technical aptitude, bullshit their way through funding and regulating technology. They are never well informed enough to come up with any sort or coherent solution, because they're barely capable in act…
Show me a politician that is?
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#257Gosh. Only about 10 years ago I used to be a convinced European from Germany. The last couple of years I started having my doubts that the EU will ever find its own legit style of handling tech concerns. Everything is crumbling and we still see deeply arrogant leadership seemingly trying to bs their way through the current turmoil. And what do they do? Regulate ChatGPT, try to introduce mass-surveillance through #cha…
What is the issue with the GDPR? If OpenAI is violating the GDPR, why should European governments ignore it?
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#258I asked chatgpt some sex questions some power there sure like the answers to:
"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."
Im sure they'd especially like the "multiple partners" part of its answer.
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then maybe you should consult the guidelines. And if someone is continuing to ignore facts and claim clearly false things as you were, what is the polite way to point that out?
I'll jump in here between the two of you and say that from my point of view it's you ignoring facts not jacquesm. I accept that if you believe jacquesm to be arguing in bad faith there's not a way to say that without it being a little bit rude, but I believe that description actually applies to your comments and not theirs. edit: your original claim- > GDPR tries to enforce its rules on servers outside of its territo…
No worries at all, I don't take that personally, but may I ask what facts you think I am ignoring?
The facts are as follows:
1. GDPR asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is clearly documented and is within the text of the act itself.
2. This is unprecedented. There is no other law from any (lets say first world) country that asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction to anywhere even close to the GDPR.
I've provided links for both of these claims.
jacquesm is arguing against both of those facts, claiming they are not in fact true, and linking to US laws trying to state that are the same thing, when they are not even close.
> It's enforcing rules on data sent to/from people in the EU and the servers (not just servers ofc), i.e. on companies offering their services to people in the EU.
Quoting from an earlier link I posted:
"Let’s say for example that you are a Chinese web shop with a website that is available in German, French and English as well. You also process multiple orders a day from individuals within the EU and ship your products to them. This will make you fall in the scope of the GDPR, even though you have no establishment in the EU and are not performing any data processing activities within the EU."
The point is that that Chinese web shop can provide services to EU citizens, and the EU has no way of enforcing any aspect of the GDPR on that Chinese webs hop, and I'm pretty sure China would be the first to tell you the GDPR does not apply within its borders.
> If the companies don't wish to follow the laws of a specific country (or in this case, all EU countries), they're welcome to not provide services to those users.
In this case, the company could be following the laws in their home country, and be in violation of the GDPR just because an EU citizen bought something from them.
In this case, the EU is responsible for blocking the website, rather than the website needing to be in compliance with the GDPR.
Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
They use every bit of data they can find without regard to the rights of the authors, publishers, or subjects of the data?
Is this coming from the same community that has always said that copyright has to be abolished?
Orthogonal complaint.
As long as copyright is here; it is expected big players are to be bound by it to the same degree they push legal systems to bind the little guy.
What you get instead, is the big guy pilfering the little guys under the justification that "it's different when we do it, and if you challenge us, I'll put my subsidized legal department to work burying you."
Copyright needing significant overhaul or abolition doesn't detract from that state of affairs, I hope we can agree?