Live data from Hacker News

Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

politico.eu

351–360 of 709 posts

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the beginning of GDPR I remember me sitting in annoying meetings with lawyers who essentially became Product Owners and designers while I still thought the GDPR-Framework makes sense in itself and might help in practice. But boy was I wrong. The people criticizing GDPR were right: Tech giants were able to cope better with the regulations while smaller domestic companies were put under an additional burden of exces…

> And from what I perceive, there's now cookie banners everywhere while my personal data is still going into opaque silos. Those cookie banners are either non-compliant with the regulations or meaningless. Why people add them is anyones guess.

No that's not true, though it does get spouted very often in online comments.

It's true that a cookie banner (notification only) does not equal "the site can now do whatever it wants and is GDPR compliant thanks to the banner".

However, cookie notification banners are nothing to do with GDPR! They are to comply with an earlier (but still active after GDPR) bit of legislation, the 2002 'ePrivacy Directive' (sometimes known as the "cookies law").

If you don't go near personal data, but still want to use cookies for website functionality, then GDPR doesn't apply but you need to notify users of your use of cookies. If you are doing stuff that's covered under GDPR, then you obviously need to do more than just a cookie notification, and in most cases doing that 'more' will cover the non-personal cookies too so no need for a separate cookie notification on top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communi...

edit to be more specific: section (25) includes "Where such devices, for instance cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to facilitate the provision of information society services, their use should be allowed on condition that users are provided with clear and precise information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment they are using." and "Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose." (meaning that unlike with GDPR, it's easier to say "these cookies are necessary, accept them or don't use this website")

Full text of that 2002 directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

And usual disclaimer, this is not legal advice, if you're doing anything affected by either the ePrivacy Directive or GDPR you'd do well to do one or both of getting specific advice from a lawyer with specific expertise in this area, and that if it's a personal site (or a company without the money for legal advice), better safe than sorry and better to give users more power (in terms of requiring their consent to use even cookies that might not need explicit opt-in to be legal, etc) than required rather than less. Both better in terms of liability, and in terms of ethics!

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously confused why governments regulate what can be put in food and sold to the public? Here's a classic for you, one of the early incidents which lead to this kind of regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning Here's some more contemporary links: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/add... https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/food-improvement-agents/fla... Wh…

>Here's a classic for you, one of the early incidents which lead to this kind of regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning I don't see how said regulation would have helped in this case, the shop owner simply mistook fake sugar for arsenic, it's not like he decided to sell arsenic-flavored candies.

Correct. He was selling candies filled with (what he thought was) gypsum. Yum.

(He didn't mix up the sugar with arsenic. He mixed up the gypsum.)

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#353
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…

> 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. Your Honor, I only murdered people in the past. I'm not murdering anyone at the moment so I should be set free!

There's no comparison between murder and anything data related, obviously. Also, logging chats and using those logs is not meaningfully different to search engines logging web searches and using them to improve web search, which they all do.

At any rate OpenAI isn't an EU company and has no presence there, so can simply ignore Italy entirely (or block it themselves).

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#354

Gosh. 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…

>> I want competent leadership in politics and business that is able to set up a culture of innovation.

I don't really want my government 'innovating' much at all. I want them to provide for defense of the people and freedoms.

How many competent government leaders have you seen?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the beginning of GDPR I remember me sitting in annoying meetings with lawyers who essentially became Product Owners and designers while I still thought the GDPR-Framework makes sense in itself and might help in practice. But boy was I wrong. The people criticizing GDPR were right: Tech giants were able to cope better with the regulations while smaller domestic companies were put under an additional burden of exces…

The people on this site who criticize the GDPR don't even know what the GDPR does, including you. Cookie banners aren't from the GDPR, they're from the ePrivacy Directive as amended in 2009. I don't understand how you people even mix this up, the cookie banners appeared several years before the GDPR existed. It's like this site is a big pity party of surveillance capitalists whining into an echo chamber, remixing and…

Maybe (I'm too lazy to check this out). But from what I remember only after GDPR those banners went viral in clumsy, annoying, not useful and frequently unnecessary implementations. Maybe it's because of hefty fines introduced in the context of GDPR.

My point is: Did it help fighting privacy issues? I don't think so. Did it harm? I do think so. Will it ever be somehow measured for its effectiveness and be taken back/changed to be more effective? I don't think so. So better get rid of it.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conflating EU and Domestic policies probably happens in every EU country. It's also a German thing to fingerpoint at Brussels. This whole ping-pong is disastrous for our democracies. In this certain case, I see already other nation's leaders and eventually the EU commission feeling inspired by this "bold" way Italy deals with ChatGPT. And #chatcontrol is an issue that directly comes from the EU commission (again the…

> It's also a German thing to fingerpoint at Brussels I wonder where Belgians point to. Schuman?

Strasbourg when the whole European Parliament is moving there for 4 days 12 times a year.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#358

Gosh. 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…

>Only about 10 years ago I used to be a convinced European from Germany.

Hear, hear.

How many "accept all cookies" button did you have to press today?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be fair I think being a good politician requires a lot of competency. Way more than we have available. Not unlike software, the field is riddled with people that do a minimally-OK job, but couldn't actually care less about what they are doing or are so incompetent they cannot even see it. In a soft setting you can get really far like that. Tech usually stops you sooner, because things just don't work if you mess u…

I don't think "leaders" need to be SME's by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, I think it would hold them back because it's easy to lose yourself in the details.

I do think that they should have a basic grasp of the fundamentals of their field though, and most politicians honestly don't even have that. I don't want to put up walls to being a back-bencher MP, but there should be a bare-minimum barrier for entry for certain Ministerial positions, especially one like Technology minister. You can't have someone leading a team who needs every-single-concept dumbed down for them so they can only make decisions from basic abstractions.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#360
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They already stopped using chats as training material for everyone anyway From the latest ChatGPT General FAQ [0]: > Will you use my conversations for training? Yes. Your conversations may be reviewed by our AI trainers to improve our systems. [0] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6783457-chatgpt-general-...

You're right, I was mistaken. What they changed is they now offer the ability to opt-out of that: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6950777-chatgpt-plus https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrnC-_A7JFs4LbIuze...

Thank you - these links are helpful.

From the above, my understanding is that they currently offer opt out for the paid subscription users only ("ChatGPT Plus").

Perhaps they may end up compelled by this case to add a similar opt out to the free version.

Or, possibly, to allow a free choice - where opting in and opting out are equally straightforward.

Post reply on HN