51–56 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
trademark != copyright. VW just means people's car, but I'd be in some trouble if I launched a new transportation company called "Volk's Wagens"
I meant trademarks. Of course a trademark of a common word might arise naturally from being in the market and becoming widely recognized (e.g. Apple), but you can't file a trademark for it until you have become widely recognized. This is why Nova is a very popular term for products.
The difficulty comes from the obligation to protect a trademark - if you have trademark rights to a term and don't take reasonable steps to protect it, you're at risk of losing your rights.
>> Amazon makes it easier for developers and tech enthusiasts to explore Amazon Nova Well, you don't. Can't find a simple way to try it out. Not that i expected anything else. The only thing saving AWS in the AI wave seems to be their deal with Anthropic.
If it’s anything like AWS then that makes sense. Why is the UI for all cloud providers absolutely dogshit? Has anyone written about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really doesn't do anything more than mandate consumer side protection. Data locality in legally compatible jurisdictions is the most fundamental form of protection there is. Without concepts such as Safe Harbour and data locality, handling of PII would be farcical amongst MNCs. Re: Demands on Encryption? The most prominent mention of encryption is in Article 32(1)(a), which mentions the “pseudonymisation and encry…
Ah excellent. Encryption is not compulsory, but doing a bureaucratic risk assessment of whether you need encryption is. That is so much less work. In reality, GDPR is a jobs program for eurocrat auditing and consulting firms combined with an effort by Facebook and Google to prevent European competition. Note that GDPR fines are big enough that they can crush a small company, but small enough that Google wouldn't care…
The notion that this is either a consulting gig fix or an effort to prevent European competition is naive and farcical in the extreme. The three highest fines for Meta (1.2b, 405m, 390m) total €2 Billion. More than every other GDPR fine combined.
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
Note that GDPR fines for individuals and SMEs are in the 3 to 5 figure range, and come under very basic grounds following repeated warnings. The intention is not to 'crush' anything, least of all SMEs in a globalised marketplace.
This is quickly evident when you look through the fines, whereby the only entity that wasn't a major company with hundreds of millions in turnover to break a fine of €5 million was a Croatian Debt Collector with absolutely appalling violations of basic data control - including processing minors, processing people with no debt at all, and monitoring things down to progression of terminal illnesses.
https://azop.hr/debt-collection-agency-eos-matrix-d-o-o-impo...
The most common by far is Art. 5 and 6 - Insufficient legal basis for data processing, followed by Art. 28 (3) and Art. 32 - Insufficient technical and organisational measures to ensure information security.
These are basic compliance requirements, mirroring something like PCI but for personal as opposed to cardholder information. Framing this as some lobbyist wet dream of Goliath vs David is just so much FUD.