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

Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 735 posts

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#491

Post by Muromec »

burnte wrote: post #477
Saline9515 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parliament doesn't get to choose the laws it has to vote. The parliament can't repell a law, and doesn't hold the pen during negociations.

So the laws that Parliament votes on just appear in session magically? They're not written by EU citizens and politicians?

It's a bit complicated to feed more stability into the system, but then this gets hijacked by national governments as an excuse to never take any blame for any shit that follows. Everything good is us, sovereign entities and all that is bad is always the other people in Brussels. Even zo the people in Brussels are mostly deputies of the same people or just themselves, but 26x.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#492

Post by yxhuvud »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #79

I understand Apple's position on this one. This is essentially a backdoor into all of your data. It is also a very useful feature. The EU regulators are disallowing guardrails without which this backdoor will be used to strip-mine people's personal data. The privacy implications are not legible to most people. If I was more cynical I would suggest that this is being used as an end-run around encryption, since the enc…

It is not prohibiting guard rails. It is prohibiting Siri getting preferred treatment to bypass said guard rails

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#493

Post by bnj »

schubidubiduba wrote: post #256
bnj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I follow the situation, it seems that regulatory uncertainty is a major issue though- the EU’s requirements are framed in terms of outcomes sought, rather than in terms that can be quantitatively shown as met or broken. So it’s not a matter of dedicating a team to meet a list of requirements, but instead navigating the worst case scenario of enforcement if post-launch the EU determines that the proscribed outcomes…

Those requirements are explicitly on the outcomes because companies like Apple used to abuse loopholes in previous, non-outcome defined laws. They, as always, have no one to blame but themselves.

It sounds like what you’re saying is that because the legislature can’t anticipate how companies will abuse loopholes, they sidestep that by outlining the outcomes instead.

The issue I have with that approach is that I don’t agree with that approach to governance. I believe it’s incumbent on the regulator to define what is acceptable vs. disallowed in unambiguous terms.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#494

Post by bnj »

gmueckl wrote: post #69
bnj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I follow the situation, it seems that regulatory uncertainty is a major issue though- the EU’s requirements are framed in terms of outcomes sought, rather than in terms that can be quantitatively shown as met or broken. So it’s not a matter of dedicating a team to meet a list of requirements, but instead navigating the worst case scenario of enforcement if post-launch the EU determines that the proscribed outcomes…

A lot of regulation is legally defined in terms of outcomes. That in itself isn't unusual. Checklists of technical requirements are almowt always a derivative and a suggestion about a safe path to meet the regulated outcome. This is how "blessed" standards for e.g. medical devices work. This shields the laws themselves from overly technical discussions. The only difference that I can see here is that the standards la…

That’s a good point. So maybe another point of divergence here is that the outcomes of the DMA are rooted in inherently unpredictable market interactions, whereas a medical device standard depends on the device performance and characteristics.

I don’t think it makes sense to create an accountability framework for a company that requires the cooperation of the market, because I think companies should be in a position to either comply or be held accountable on their own merits

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#495

Post by overfeed »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #377
overfeed wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's concern is at the intersection of DMA and privacy. Apple is worried that other parties having the same level of data access that Apple has today would create privacy issues. This is because Apple's current privacy posture is "Trust Apple with your data" rather than "Trust no one with your data - including Apple", but that would be less profitable, but would have prevented the request for an exception because…

> Apple is worried that other parties having the same level of access that Apple has today would create privacy issues But this is solvable. The problem is the work it takes to solve it isn’t worth the hit to time to market. (And possibly even the cost.)

> But this is solvable

That's the crux of my point; Apple could have solved this on day zero if they had a consumer-centered threat-model and/or considered user data to be a liability rather than a hook for service subscriptions.

> The problem is the work it takes to solve it isn’t worth the hit to time to market. (And possibly even the cost.)

I don't consider this to be a problem, but the DMA working as intended and preventing gatekeepers from competing unfairly.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#496

Post by well_ackshually »

theshrike79 wrote: post #453
andix wrote: post #253

It's totally fine that Apple doesn't release this feature for EU customers. If they think they can still sell enough phones it's also fine I guess. What's not fine, is to blame the EU for the missing feature. It's damaging their brand and damaging their reputation. Just think about if Porsche would make a press release and calling the US tariffs "un-American". Wouldn't be perceived well either.

You know what would also damage their brand? Fancois Normal installing a 3rd party AI service which turns out to have zero security and actively just harvesting private data. Tell me which company in your opinion would be in the LOUD headlines, Apple or the random 3rd party?

Sorry, Apple has to be dragged, kicking and screaming to allow app store alternatives, that they charge offensive amounts for "to ensure your security" and has Draconian review rules on the App Store "to ensure your security".

Sure, 3rd party will get some shit. But if Apple neither protected me on their App Store _or_ on the app stores that they extort, what the fuck is their racket for? As long as Apple keeps this behaviour, they deserve to have their cornflakes pissed in.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#497

Post by bnj »

vrganj wrote: post #395
bnj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I follow the situation, it seems that regulatory uncertainty is a major issue though- the EU’s requirements are framed in terms of outcomes sought, rather than in terms that can be quantitatively shown as met or broken. So it’s not a matter of dedicating a team to meet a list of requirements, but instead navigating the worst case scenario of enforcement if post-launch the EU determines that the proscribed outcomes…

That is fundamentally how EU law works The intent matters, not the letter of the law. No loopholes, no bad faith interpretation. Just do what the law wants from you, if you make a mistake in good faith, you'll be given leeway to fix it. > When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the p…

Thanks for sharing this, I didn’t realize that there was a fundamental philosophical divergence here- you’ve really helped me expand my thinking

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#498

Post by coldtea »

shykes wrote: post #429
Nifty3929 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly! Also forced EU voters to consider how much they value these services, and whether the regulations are worth it not to have them, or to have watered down versions of them. I say this without judgment - I see it as a legitimate area of consideration. I think the worst is hugely impactful laws for which exceptions are constantly carved out so nobody can truly evaluate whether the law/reg is a good one or n…

> Also forced EU voters to consider how much they value these services It's been a while since I left Europe, and I'm rusty on that particular layer of civics. Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation? Or is it all decided on the executive side which is only accountable to member states and not to individual citizens?

>Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation?

Barely.

>Or is it all decided on the executive side which is only accountable to member states and not to individual citizens?

It's decided by a mix of unelected bureucrats and opaque procedures people track even less than their national politics.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#499

Post by perks_12 »

yxhuvud wrote: post #454
redviperpt wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU "voters" don't get a say in any of this.

What are you talking about, DMA has passed in the parliament.

I'd argue the average EU citizen has absolutely no idea how any of the Brussels bullshit works in reality. We learned it in school once, very briefly, just long enough to learn it is a clusterfuck of chambers. We are told it is democratic, and that's it. Once you get older, all you hear is: Brussels forbids this, forbids that. The EU is ripe for disruption.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#500

Post by coldtea »

Muromec wrote: post #484
eastbound wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a say at a 4th level of derived decision, which is 2 levels more than what people call a democracy. Also, the other political party will do it too. = We don’t have a say. We voted NO to the new EU treaties in 2008 and the new president decided that electing him meant that we approved the same treaties. They only let us vote when we agree, anyway.

The lower chamber of parliament that votes on the regulation is directly elected and can rewrite and amend proposals. The higher chamber (EU Council) is comprised from government (or state?) heads which are either directly of indirectly elected with a length of 1. The commission (executive branch) that drafts the laws that are amended and passed by the parliament is voted in by a parliament which is directly elected.…

It's even less direct than national parliaments, which already are a joke.

And the unelected bureucracy, careerists, and 2-3 big country interests pressuring others under the table, are driving the show...

Post reply on HN