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

AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 424 posts

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#51

Post by uniqueuid »

amelius wrote: post #43
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #33

I am not expert but there seems to be an overlap in the article between 'AI' and well ... just software, or signal processing: - AI that collects “real time” biometric data in public places for the purposes of law enforcement. - AI that creates — or expands — facial recognition databases by scraping images online or from security cameras. - AI that uses biometrics to infer a person’s characteristics - AI that collect…

You can even replace AI by humans. For example, it is not legal for e.g. police officers to engage in racial profiling.

No you cannot, see Article 2: Scope

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#52

Post by hcfman »

So is a burglar alarm that uses AI to see a person on your property and alert the owner (Same function as the old PIR sensors) now AI tech that is predicting that there is a person that might be wanting to commit a crime and thus a banned use of AI now?

Or is it something that is open to interpretation, let the courts sort of out and fine you 15,000,000 euros if someone in the EU has leverage on the courts and doesn't like you?

Oh and the courts will already kill any small startup.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#53

Post by dijksterhuis »

hcfman wrote: post #52

So is a burglar alarm that uses AI to see a person on your property and alert the owner (Same function as the old PIR sensors) now AI tech that is predicting that there is a person that might be wanting to commit a crime and thus a banned use of AI now? Or is it something that is open to interpretation, let the courts sort of out and fine you 15,000,000 euros if someone in the EU has leverage on the courts and doesn'…

From the act:

> to assess or predict the risk of a natural person committing a criminal offence, based solely on the profiling of a natural person or on assessing their personality traits and characteristics;

more details in recital 42: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/42/

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#54

Post by scarface_74 »

troupo wrote: post #49
scarface_74 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections and all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners it would be different.

> Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law It is a simple law. You can read it in an afternoon. If you still don't understand it 8 years later , it's not the fault of the law. > instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections News flash: humans and their affairs are complicated > all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. Bonus points: who is responsible for the cookie b…

It doesn’t matter what it requires, the point is as usual, the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology.

That partially explains the state of the tech industry in the EU.

But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR?

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#56

Post by wiz21c »

troupo wrote: post #49
scarface_74 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections and all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners it would be different.

> Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law It is a simple law. You can read it in an afternoon. If you still don't understand it 8 years later , it's not the fault of the law. > instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections News flash: humans and their affairs are complicated > all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. Bonus points: who is responsible for the cookie b…

> Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners.

That's the bit everyone forget. GDPR didn't ask for cookie banners at all. It asked for consent in case consent is needed.

And most of the time consent is not needed since I just can say "no cookies" to many websites and everything is just fine.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#57

Post by scarface_74 »

wiz21c wrote: post #56
troupo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law It is a simple law. You can read it in an afternoon. If you still don't understand it 8 years later , it's not the fault of the law. > instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections News flash: humans and their affairs are complicated > all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. Bonus points: who is responsible for the cookie b…

> Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. That's the bit everyone forget. GDPR didn't ask for cookie banners at all. It asked for consent in case consent is needed. And most of the time consent is not needed since I just can say "no cookies" to many websites and everything is just fine.

Intentions don’t matter, effects do

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#58

Post by hcfman »

I would like to see a new law that puts any member of government found obstructing justice is put in jail.

Except that the person responsible for travesty of justice framing 9 innocent people in this Dutch series is currently the president of the court of Maastricht.

https://npo.nl/start/serie/de-villamoord

Remember. The courts have the say as to who wins and looses in these new vague laws. The ones running the courts have to not be corrupt. But the case above shows that this situation is in fact not the case.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#59

Post by IMTDb »

dijksterhuis wrote: post #38
infecto wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And its kind of funny when non-legal experts attempt to say something is fine or not. It depends highly on not only how its written but the spirit of what the EU is attempting to do. The knee jerk reaction is probably that historically institutions do a terrible job of writing rules and especially rules around new technology.

you are right to call me out. IANAL. on me.

An actual lawyer will probably agree with you. And also charge me to give me the same opinion. They will also say “but if you end up being sued, it’s not my fault”.

So basically I just need to second guess everything I do, until someone somewhere gets sued and loses and another dude gets sued and loses. At that point we will have some idea about what the law really entails (at which point they change it and the cycle restarts)

In the meantime, my US competitors are just moving full steam ahead.

Re: AI systems with 'unacceptable risk' are now banned in the EU

#60

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #54
troupo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe if the GDPR was a simple law It is a simple law. You can read it in an afternoon. If you still don't understand it 8 years later , it's not the fault of the law. > instead of 11 chapters and 99 sections News flash: humans and their affairs are complicated > all anyone got as a benefit from it is cookie banners Please show me where GDPR requires cookie banners. Bonus points: who is responsible for the cookie b…

It doesn’t matter what it requires, the point is as usual, the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology. That partially explains the state of the tech industry in the EU. But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR?

The EU just prioritises protection for its citizens over tech industry profits. They are also not opposed to ad revenue and tracking; only that people must consent to being tracked, no sneaky spying. I'm quite happy for tech to have those restrictions.
Post reply on HN