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

541–550 of 735 posts

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

#541

Post by kergonath »

coldtea wrote: post #500
Muromec wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It’s just as direct as national parliaments. Citizens vote for MEPs.

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

#542

Post by MBCook »

microtonal wrote: post #336
MBCook wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that if Apple's model gets all that access, they should give others access to those APIs as well, otherwise they are giving themselves benefits over the competition Yes. They SHOULD. So how did they do that without throwing away their privacy promise or running afoul of the privacy laws?

First, LLM providers providing their services to European customers are bound to European privacy laws (GDPR) as well. If third-party providers violate the GDPR, it is not Apple's problem. Just like it's not the problem of Debian if you run Claude Code and Claude Code decides to upload your whole life (even though the OS provides the APIs to read the files). Second, they could provide users with permission toggles of…

> it is not Apple's problem

Maybe legally. Customers won’t see it that way.

Having to prompt users the first time an AI accesses each of the many different data stores on iOS sounds like an annoying mess.

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

#543

Post by JumpCrisscross »

BrenBarn wrote: post #379
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you knew the restrictions day one you’d be able to engineer the system to accommodate them This slows down deploying the system globally. Particularly if the target is moving, it may make sense to build lightly so one can pivot, and then build in the compliance stuff after you know you have a winning configuration. The EU has its laws. Apple has its strategy. The only thing I fault anyone on is the public bicker…

> This slows down deploying the system globally. Good. Pretty much everything should roll out way slower.

So win-win. EU consumers get a fully-baked, slower-rolled-out product. American consumers and developers get to see it earlier, warts and opportunities and all.

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

#544

Post by MBCook »

sublimefire wrote: post #416
MBCook wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s right, they can hand it over to their servers. And they’ve got special agreements with Google to do the same exact thing. That preserves privacy. Is it possible to do that with absolutely any company that wants to be able to be the AI on your phone? Are most of those companies even capable of handling something like that? That’s thorny.

PCC is supposed to work only on Apple silicon. You are supposed to trust that the input will be decrypted within the enclave which is next to inference engine on the same box. This way you know the input does not leave the server. If they offload to another server (eg google) then the privacy boundary is broken, once it leaves the enclave. Microsoft does it differently, where inference is confidential so more guarant…

Google has a similar thing they announced a year or two ago that uses the various hardware security stuff in the PC world that Apple is working with them to add to the list of approved stuff that gives PCC level security.

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

#545

Post by Saline9515 »

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?

Yes, European Commission decides the laws. Then a “trilogue” negotiation happens between the Commission, MPs, and EU government representatives, but the MPs don't hold the pen on the final wording (Commission does).

MPs can't therefore repeal laws; they can at most ask the Commission to set themes on the program. The Commission is therefore strongly dominant, as it is composed of career unelected officials who can wait for a compliant Parliament to pass the laws they want and target MPs in negotiations. This is what they do with ChatControl.

Of course there are no checks and balances for the Commission officials, who are bureaucrats with an opaque agenda. The EU is a weak form of democracy, which is geared toward bureaucratic capture and legal inflation.

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

#546

Post by MBCook »

krzyk wrote: post #486
MBCook wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also only in English initially. They can only do so much at once. And Apple is not a “hire an extra 30,000 people“ kind of company. Apple usually rolls stuff out in stages. This is just an extremely high profile example.

Has anyone seen a recent LLM release that supports just one language?

Apple Intelligence supports a number of languages. They showed them on a slide in the keynote.

The new Siri is limited at the moment.

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

#547

Post by Saline9515 »

Muromec wrote: post #491
burnte wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not true, the Parliament can't choose the laws it has to vote on. All negotiations are done behind closed doors, in a truly democratic and transparent manner, that allows us to lecture the rest of the world on how to govern.

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

#548

Post by Saline9515 »

Muromec wrote: post #489
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.

This isn't exactly true. They can't propose but they can amend. The final text has to be agreed by the commission, the lower chamber (the parliament) and the higher chamber (the council, which is heads of states).

They can't propose, they can amend, but they don't hold the pen, and the Commission can veto it. Seems really democratic, Stalin would be proud!

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

#549

Post by Saline9515 »

jyounker wrote: post #507
Saline9515 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is chatcontrol being pushed every year by the european commission, while people and their representatives are in majority against it? Besides given the amount of lobbying in the EU institutions, it's obvious that citizens don't have a chance against corpos with infinite money.

And how is that different from any other governmental level? Seriously, we in Berlin got a freeway that nobody I know wanted or wants. It's not the EU's fault.

In a classic democracy, the Parliament can repeal laws, unlike in the EU.

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

#550

Post by kergonath »

sneak wrote: post #539
burnte wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not as if Apple doesn't have the money to dedicate a team to matching the EU's requirements on a deadline. They just choose not to. Exactly, that's actually why I LIKE this decision so much. I'm not on Apple's side, but I REALLY like the idea that a company just says, "Fine, we'll comply by not even offering this product." It's a perfectly legitimate choice, and it FORCED Apple to evaluate the pros and cons. I…

> I want more companies to not get exemptions and thus not offer law-breaking products. I LIKE that the government is saying, "fix it or don't bring it here" and Apple just has to live with it. The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense. It is not the state's place to tell people what they s…

> It is not the state's place to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to buy.

You will always find people willing to spend money on anything. The whole point of politics is that we have to draw a line between what people want to do and the effect that it can have on other people. To put it simply, if your freedom affects mine, then someone needs to decide how far you can go and how much I have to accept.

We commonly accept that scams are bad, even though someone might participate willingly, just because it is much more likely that someone is taken advantage of in a way that most people find immoral, for example. Even in bastions of free speech such as the US. That someone somewhere knowingly gave money to someone else is neither here nor there.

Post reply on HN