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

701–710 of 735 posts

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

#701

Post by duskwuff »

krzyk wrote: post #672
duskwuff wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. What it replaced was rightsholders suing web services (like a forum or web host) as a first resort, which was a much more cumbersome and painful process for all parties.

If it was more painful for the suing party, it was a good thing. Now all it needs is send some letter to github and they take down content, no questions asked, how is that better? It is for court to decide.

> If it was more painful for the suing party, it was a good thing.

It's a lot easier for a large plaintiff - like a record label, a movie studio, or a software publisher - to file a lawsuit than it is for a small defendant like a web site operator to defend against one.

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

#702

Post by rusk »

simjnd wrote: post #685
rusk wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EU governments “European” governments. Non-european governments too. By definition “not” the EU

Of course, but I'm replying to a comment that speaks like surveillance doesn't exist in the EU because there is not a European NSA, so I'm talking specifically about the EU surveillance risk.

> I'm talking specifically about the EU surveillance risk.

So specifically NOT MI6, GCHQ, the Swiss, Norway, FSB.

Only the members of an economic bloc that you envy.

Okay bro

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

#703

Post by Rohansi »

stouset wrote: post #693
Rohansi wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Apple has to? Why? What forces Apple to do this?

Nothing at all. But they do it because it’s clearly a priority for them and something that’s currently part of their corporate ethos. Would it be better if something forced them to? Probably so! But barring that, having them volunteer to be responsible stewards—and prevent others from acting badly here—is potentially one of the best alternatives.

That's exactly my point. It's just the reputation they've built.

> But barring that, having them volunteer to be responsible stewards—and prevent others from acting badly here—is potentially one of the best alternatives.

This is the part that bugs me. Reputations are earned. Ask yourself: would Apple allow another entity to deploy their AI assistant on iOS if they respect user privacy at least as well as Apple? I doubt it! Apple is not doing this as a kindness to its customers - it directly benefits Apple as an excuse to lock competitors out of their platform.

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

#704

Post by mike_hearn »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #696
mike_hearn wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU Councils decisions are taken in secret. You have no idea if it's democratic or not, nor does it matter even if they do hold a vote because by convention none of them ever campaign on the decisions they make there. To see this, try and find out how Ursula von der Leyen ended up the most powerful woman in Europe. What qualified her for that, who were the alternative candidates considered, what was said during th…

As far as I understand the council's votes are made public. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/how-does-the-c... But the European Parliaments votes can be by secret vote, which is bad in my opinion, and ironic considering they're the ones we directly elect.

Ah but look closely at those votes - do you see anything strange about them? Anything at odds with the idea that they are being cast by directly elected heads of government based on national policy programmes?

Edit: Nevermind, I'll be more direct.

What you linked to isn't the European Council that has elected heads of state in it. It's the votes of the Council of the European Union. Yes, this naming choice is astoundingly stupid, and because it's never been fixed despite many decades of confusion there are many who speculate the confusion is deliberate. It creates exactly the kind of false appearance of democracy that's tripped you up here.

The European Council, the one with Macron, Merz, etc in it, doesn't publish anything about their decision making process. There probably aren't votes. They don't approve or disapprove laws, either. Officially they decide things by consensus. Unofficially nobody knows because they all swear each other to secrecy.

The laws are approved by the Council of the European Union who are, theoretically, still ministers from the different governments i.e. a vote on a trade law would have trade ministers. In reality, that's not how it works either. You can easily verify it. Here's a random law that got approved recently by the 'democratic' parts of the system, on "the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability":

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9729-2026-I...

Obvious questions one might ask include:

1. Why does dog welfare have to be imposed on members via transnational law they can't change?

2. Why are nearly all the votes of the Council passing with 95%+ support, all the time? Aren't they supposed to be from different political parties in different countries?

3. Is it really plausible that elected trade ministers from all over Europe travelled somewhere, met and had a meaningful debate about dog welfare?

The answers are respectively:

1. It doesn't and shouldn't.

2. Because they aren't real votes.

3. https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13873/27/eu-counc... says "The EU Council adopted the regulation ... without debate." (note the same naming confusion in the EU's own websites - they use "EU Council" to mean the body that approves laws, which isn't the body made up of heads of state that calls itself the European Council).

This law was waved through by some low level civil servants on behalf of the ministers. Probably neither group even read it. As is true for almost all EU law: most of the work is done by lobbyists.

So, when people tell you the EU is a democracy because of the Council, think about that. Or just ask them which council they mean, because they probably don't know themselves. Fun fact: there's also the Council of Europe which isn't connected to the EU at all.

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

#705

Post by 827a »

theshrike79 wrote: post #646
827a wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah that must be why Apple is so careful about restricting access to the same data when it is synced onto a Mac oh wait they aren't

You actually think that "syncing onto a mac" is the same as sending the data to a completely unvetted 3rd party cloud?

"I own data that may be stored on Apple's servers. Apple's operating system syncs that data to my local computer in a secure fashion. Apple's operating system exposes low-level APIs that allow other applications to access that data. I can install third party applications. Those third party applications can access that data and may exfiltrate it to an unvetted 3rd party cloud."

Your turn smart guy: Am I talking about iOS or MacOS?

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

#706

Post by troupo »

jen20 wrote: post #689
troupo wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place, Yes, they can. Apple wields its duopoly power to try and bend governments to its will.

> Yes, they can. Then why aren't they?

Because Apple decided you don't deserve them.

It literally is:

EU: users must have choice.

Apple: no.

Apple literally says that because they are required to give users more choice they will give users less choice: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-a...

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

#707

Post by greggoB »

jplrssn wrote: post #664
greggoB wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the news you read I guess, to me the word "slammed" is pretty commonplace in politics news-reporting and has been for a while (read: well before the modern take-down content that's so common to social media platforms).

You're right, I was thinking of "slammed" as being part of take-down style news reporting. Looking at Google Ngram, usage of "slams" started inflecting upwards in the early 90's and then even more strongly in the mid-2000's. [0] I wonder if that second increase represents the type of usage I had in mind. (I looked at "slams" rather than "slammed" to try to avoid some of the other modern meanings, like being slammed w…

> wonder if that second increase represents the type of usage I had in mind.

Could be, this is when social media was taking off and people chasing "viral" moments started to become a thing I guess.

I agree the difference is somewhat contextually nuanced, I had to check the usage of "slammed" as I know it to confirm my understood usage is a thing.

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

#708

Post by meta_gunslinger »

afthonos wrote: post #700
meta_gunslinger wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tons of people have died for a variety of causes throughout human history. It does not mean that the causes were not silly or deluded. (e.g religious wars, Communism, Fascism etc.)

Carlin didn’t say it was silly, he said it didn’t matter. Religion, communism, fascism were all world-defining ideas, and they very much mattered to those who fought for them and against them. What am I saying, “mattered”. Go check social media, they matter right now .

Well they weren’t silly but they were definitely deluded. They still are.

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

#709

Post by stouset »

Rohansi wrote: post #703
stouset wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing at all. But they do it because it’s clearly a priority for them and something that’s currently part of their corporate ethos. Would it be better if something forced them to? Probably so! But barring that, having them volunteer to be responsible stewards—and prevent others from acting badly here—is potentially one of the best alternatives.

That's exactly my point. It's just the reputation they've built. > But barring that, having them volunteer to be responsible stewards—and prevent others from acting badly here—is potentially one of the best alternatives. This is the part that bugs me. Reputations are earned . Ask yourself: would Apple allow another entity to deploy their AI assistant on iOS if they respect user privacy at least as well as Apple? I do…

This argument would be a lot more compelling if there was literally any company out there with an interest in doing this sort of thing that had even remotely comparable a track record to Apple.

OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Perplexity, and everyone else in this space are openly brazen about how much of your information they want to consume—however possible—to store in perpetuity and use for whatever future purpose they want.

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

#710

Post by tonoto »

mountain_peak wrote: post #564
tonoto wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be that we have a say, but there are a lot of decisions happening in Brussels that it "feels like" we, EU voters, don't have a say in. Such as: - Chat Control - Vehicle regulations (mandates on "eCall", disturbing audio visuals and other "safety measuers) in Regulation (EU) 2018/858 - Eventual upcoming ethanol restrictions - Ban on plastic drinking straws - Drink caps that are stuck to the bottles - Ban on p…

Maybe this is just a fantasy, but drink producers were previously responsible for their "waste". Bottlers would pick-up and recycle glass bottles, but the onus shifted completely to the consumer - first with a glass bottle deposit, then with the advent of disposable plastic containers. Glass bottles largely didn't require a straw, unlike the latest frappuccino, which generally comes with a plastic container, lid, and…

I don't even know whom they try to fool (apparently, they are succeeding in many ways...), but as you mention.. they (the politicians and institutions) complain about nanoplastics, and at the same time moves towards a plastic world. It is hypocrisy of many degrees. Milk containers used to be only paper, but now they are both paper and plastic for some reason. It's hard to find drinking bottles that are glass as they most turned plastic (I do, however, choose metal before plastic due to taste). Drinking straws.. in the super market it's now possible to buy "reusable" (Made in P.R.C) drinking straws for a really cheap price (that they are in practise, one time straws)..
Post reply on HN