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

601–610 of 709 posts

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#601

Post by aledalgrande »

munk-a wrote: post #412
Helmut10001 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Report from Germany: Haven't received a spam call in years.

Report from Canada: I might receive something like three spam calls in the past year. I don't know why my spam dropped so significantly when I moved up to Canada but it was quite dramatic compared to the US. There are periodic waves but I tend to miss out of them - I suspect because Canada works hard to prevent dumb auto-dialers from working.

Lucky you, if you have a Vancouver number you'll definitely get calls from the "Chinese immigration department" which wants to get you deported unless you immediately wire $1000. How do I know that if they speak in Mandarin you say? I have great imagination B-)

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#603

Post by aydyn »

Zurrrrr wrote: post #538
stametseater wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> breaking no law in their country Singaporean law forbids their citizens and residents from using drugs in other countries. So if a Singapore resident goes to Amsterdam or Portland and smokes a joint there, they are complying with local laws but still breaking Singaporean laws. Laws with this sort of extraterritorial jurisdiction aren't without precedent. Particularly, other countries, like the US, UK and many other…

> Singaporean law forbids their citizens and residents from using drugs in other countries. The problem is with that law being applied to non-residents . If Singapore wants to police it's citizens lik that, it's fine. But to arrest a Canadian because they smoked weed a couple of days before arriving at Singpore customs, where it's legal in Montreal where they were? > With that I agree, but I think a better word to de…

Other countries, including the U.S. and European countries regulate who and who cannot come into their borders all the time. Youre entirely free to smoke weed and not visit Singapore. Who are you to dictate what laws they set on their own soil?

Re sucide: you should probably fact check that, because the criminality of suicide was recently repealed in Singapore.

But even if it wasnt, I find your stance hyperbolic considering lots of countries still criminalize suicide. Places in the U.S. considered suicide criminal all the way up to the 90s.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#604

Post by bigcat12345678 »

prenoob wrote: post #82

Writing 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.

Interesting logic:

A is not doing good in B B+ is a worse version of B A addressed B+

Then people not encouraging them, but still say A is "pretending to work"...

Are you "pretending to think", or just is another troll?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#605

Post by Tryk »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #598
Tryk wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read this comment thread I feel compelled to comment that I find your reasoning bizarre. You started out with saying: > GDPR tries to enforce its rules on servers outside of its territory. Which you then clarified to > It's still fascinating (and, I believe, a first) that the EU thinks they have extraterritorial jurisdiction just because their citizens are affected. So it would appear as if your argument is: G…

> I find your reasoning bizarre. I can concede that maybe I have not expressed myself well or articulated my points clearly. Allow me to try and clarify. > GDPR is unique, because it exerts extraterritorial jurisdiction over servers whenever EU citizens are affected. It's not simply the extraterritorial jurisdiction, it's that combined with how far-reaching and broad the GDPR is. The other examples people have given…

>Why should I relent when those points show that COPPA is indeed quite different from GDPR? What's the flaw in my reasoning here?

The flaw, in my view, is that you begin with something that sounds very general (GDPR is the first extraterritorial law!!) and wind up defending a very particular and narrow statement which is appears distant from your starting position (GDPR is the first extraterritorial law that targets SERVERS).

>GDPR is saying they could take action against one lone Chinese person operating a small business from home within China, someone who has never even left China, just because they collected data on someone in France.

Personally I wouldn't base my interpretation of a complex, and to a large extend untested, international law on some document from a international conglomerate (i.e. Deloitte). I would ask myself, if there are any ulterior motives (i.e. profit) that might be biasing their view.

NB: Biased information != False information.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#606

Post by memorable »

blep_ wrote: post #595
memorable wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Report from Vietnam: I received scam calls pretty often before. It Vietnam trash SIMs were fairly common, and it bothered people so much that the goverment has to force every mobile company to "standardize" their consumer's data (i.e. fixing the incorrect data in trash SIMs). I have not received any scam calls since doing it.

What do you mean by "trash SIMs"?

Basically SIMs owned by previous owners that are brimmed with scam messages and calls. They are much cheaper than new legitimate SIMs so many people choose them. Sometimes people buy trash SIMs that has "good" or "lucky" numbers (something like 999 999 9999)

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#607

Post by Zurrrrr »

aydyn wrote: post #603
Zurrrrr wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Singaporean law forbids their citizens and residents from using drugs in other countries. The problem is with that law being applied to non-residents . If Singapore wants to police it's citizens lik that, it's fine. But to arrest a Canadian because they smoked weed a couple of days before arriving at Singpore customs, where it's legal in Montreal where they were? > With that I agree, but I think a better word to de…

Other countries, including the U.S. and European countries regulate who and who cannot come into their borders all the time. Youre entirely free to smoke weed and not visit Singapore. Who are you to dictate what laws they set on their own soil? Re sucide: you should probably fact check that, because the criminality of suicide was recently repealed in Singapore. But even if it wasnt, I find your stance hyperbolic cons…

> Who are you to dictate what laws they set on their own soil?

I'm not dictating, I'm disaproving.

Sovereign nations can indeed have whatever laws they want, and I don't have to go there but I can continue to speak out against bad and unjust laws as I see it.

> I find your stance hyperbolic considering lots of countries still criminalize suicide.

If that's true, that's ignorance on my part.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#608

Post by Zurrrrr »

Tryk wrote: post #605
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find your reasoning bizarre. I can concede that maybe I have not expressed myself well or articulated my points clearly. Allow me to try and clarify. > GDPR is unique, because it exerts extraterritorial jurisdiction over servers whenever EU citizens are affected. It's not simply the extraterritorial jurisdiction, it's that combined with how far-reaching and broad the GDPR is. The other examples people have given…

>Why should I relent when those points show that COPPA is indeed quite different from GDPR? What's the flaw in my reasoning here? The flaw, in my view, is that you begin with something that sounds very general (GDPR is the first extraterritorial law!!) and wind up defending a very particular and narrow statement which is appears distant from your starting position (GDPR is the first extraterritorial law that targets…

Deloitte has a huge reputation to maintain and wouldn't be putting out false information.

Besides, they are not saying anything that any other reputable source isn't also saying.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#609

Post by victor106 »

maroonblazer wrote: post #584
austinl wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, I used to receive multiple spam calls a day. A few years ago, I turned on the iOS setting that sends all phone numbers not in my contacts straight to voicemail and haven't looked back. It's occasionally inconvenient—maybe once or twice a year I deal with a company that needs to call me. But if it's a call from a real person, I can always listen to the voicemail and call them back. Most spam calls either do…

Had no idea this setting existed despite being an iPhone user for years. Thank you! Settings->General->Phone->Silence Unknown Callers

On my version it’s here

Settings->Phone->Silence Unknown Callers

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#610

Post by ChatGTP »

Karunamon wrote: post #291
ChatGTP wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…right, all of the world should give away their secrets for training purposes to make OpenAI more money ? Give me a break…

If someone wants to "give away their secrets", it is authoritarian to tell them they can't.

but it goes both ways, I should also have access to technology without having to give away my secrets :)
Post reply on HN