101–110 of 123 posts
I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But now maybe you learned a lesson, and you won't publicly share things you don't want people to see?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no expectation of privacy in public This is claimed a lot but absolutely not true. Stop repeating this very obviously false statement.
Obviously false? I’m sorry but “private” and “public” are exact opposites to one another. Being “in public” is quite exactly where you don’t have a general expectation of being “in private”.
Do you believe you have the right not to have a satellite track or drone hover over you in public and share that feed, associated with your identity, with the whole world? I sure do. You should too.
I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But now maybe you learned a lesson, and you won't publicly share things you don't want people to see?
The “right to be forgotten” is an explicit right in the EU, which I think applies here.
I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But now maybe you learned a lesson, and you won't publicly share things you don't want people to see?
Did you read the article? There are cases where the data was explicitly not publicly shared. Why would this journalist have no expectation to privacy? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artis... Even for publicly shared data, there is legislation in many parts of the world (notably the entire EU) that enforces an individual's right to have their data deleted.
To that end, you should consider any file on your computer to be public as well if it's connected to the internet, as there are countless ways that data could be exfiltrated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the article? There are cases where the data was explicitly not publicly shared. Why would this journalist have no expectation to privacy? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artis... Even for publicly shared data, there is legislation in many parts of the world (notably the entire EU) that enforces an individual's right to have their data deleted.
Did you read what I said? Anything posted on the internet is public. Just because you think it's private does not make it so. To that end, you should consider any file on your computer to be public as well if it's connected to the internet, as there are countless ways that data could be exfiltrated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no expectation of privacy in public This is claimed a lot but absolutely not true. Stop repeating this very obviously false statement.
Obviously false? I’m sorry but “private” and “public” are exact opposites to one another. Being “in public” is quite exactly where you don’t have a general expectation of being “in private”.
If your expectation of privacy changes in any way with any of these options, then yes, you have an expectation of privacy in public. It is a spectrum, not a binary decision. But if you think it is a binary decision you're welcome to try to record people going to the bathroom in public restrooms and see what happens. I will not be covering your lawyer fees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. How? It seems obviously correct. Suppose we trade nudes. You now sell my nudes online without my consent. You bet I have the right to sue you.
I think there's a fundamental difference between information passed in confidence for a specific purpose and information made publically available with an intended range of purposes. I do not believe that the latter is morally protected from unintended use.
But RTFA, because what it is discussing is not public facebook/twitter posts. I'm not sure why the discussion keeps moving there as if that's the only case. Besides, a public facebook post is still only visible to those on facebook. It is as public as a private country club, even if it's easy to get access. What about what you write in copilot? What about your code on github? In a private repo? The article mentions this is already protected under current law as personal information.
The fundamental problem here is about consent. What would a reasonable person expect? 10 years ago certainly no one expected this. Mass gathering of data was only for the biggest of tech and governments. Now it's in the hands of anyone that wants to train an LLM. Things changed very fast and I think a lot of people are forgetting that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously false? I’m sorry but “private” and “public” are exact opposites to one another. Being “in public” is quite exactly where you don’t have a general expectation of being “in private”.
Yes, they are in opposition, but it is a non-sequitur to then associate it with privacy. And most critically, to consider privacy to be a binary attribute, rather than a multidimensional and graduated quality. Do you believe you have the right not to have a satellite track or drone hover over you in public and share that feed, associated with your identity, with the whole world? I sure do. You should too.
I don't think enough people are internalizing how radically the world has shifted in the last 10-20 years. 10 years ago generative image models couldn't generate a black and white 32x32 image of a face. Now I can trivially transform a photo of my friend into a dog and make him bark. For most people this technology came out of nowhere because of the lag. The same goes true for other things like the internet, cellphones, social media, etc. Is it really that much of a wonder why there's so much craziness going on right now when so much has changed so fast?
And fwiw, speaking of satellites, there are now multiple companies (not governments. Companies) who's goal is to get a daily snapshot of the entire surface of the earth. They already have cameras where you can see clearly the color of cars from space. There are some where you can see people (albeit hard to see, but you only need to identify a dot to track it). We now should expect that resolution to increase, not only in number of pixels, but frequency. This technology can do a lot of good, just like ML, but at the same time it can be used for a log of destruction and oppression, just like ML. The question is if these technologies are going to go the way of atomics or the way of the internet. But even simply saying this, I, a dumb human who's barely more advanced than our chimp cousins and barely capable of communicating, have a hard time internalizing what this future world will be like, despite being only 10 or so years away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a fundamental difference between information passed in confidence for a specific purpose and information made publically available with an intended range of purposes. I do not believe that the latter is morally protected from unintended use.
Sure, but as is a big discussion in this thread, that public private distinction is quite messy. We don't have just private chats and old twitter style where everyone can see everything. Facebook has posts which you can share with only friends, or with even more limited groups. This changes your perceived privacy levels and expectations. We have various group chats with widely different expectations of privacy. But R…
I just don't think that's the right angle. I think if you're in the public sphere, the way that you anticipated your creations to be used just shouldn't matter at all. If you've given something to the public, the public should not be limited to whatever you thought they'd use it for.
And the conversation keeps coming back to that because people keep making that argument. I specifically agree that private Facebook posts are not covered under this argument! However, I also think that consent as a basis for analysis just doesn't apply to public posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but as is a big discussion in this thread, that public private distinction is quite messy. We don't have just private chats and old twitter style where everyone can see everything. Facebook has posts which you can share with only friends, or with even more limited groups. This changes your perceived privacy levels and expectations. We have various group chats with widely different expectations of privacy. But R…
> The fundamental problem here is about consent. What would a reasonable person expect? 10 years ago certainly no one expected this. I just don't think that's the right angle. I think if you're in the public sphere, the way that you anticipated your creations to be used just shouldn't matter at all. If you've given something to the public, the public should not be limited to whatever you thought they'd use it for. An…
As for consent, you may disagree, but that's how our entire legal framework works, and I for one am happy about this. Consent is the foundation of any democracy. A world without consent isn't figuratively tyranny, it is literally tyranny. Agree or not, the law does not give you the right to use any information (words spoken, pictures taken, bits, or whatever) that is publicly available/viewable in whatever way you want. There are rules. It is why Taylor Swift can't even post a picture of herself on Instagram and why you can't follow someone around all day taking pictures of them (aka. stalking). There are limitations because we live in a society and I for one think this is a good thing.
Yes, you are right when posting something public that people shouldn't limits on use for only what the poster explicitly intended. But that freedom is neither unlimited. That's the point I'm making. The line of public and private is getting blurrier by the day. These laws are always made by that of a reasonable expectation. Certainly no one that posted on Facebook 10 years ago had a reasonable expectation that their post would be used to train an LLM.