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

711–720 of 735 posts

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

#711

Post by tonoto »

consp wrote: post #521
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…

Don't know where you get your apples but I can buy 1 if I want. Just not at the supermarket since they optimise to sell you more than you need. No regulation involved here.

I believe it was both in Albert and Aldi (during 2023). Felt really awkward to waste fruit, but that's nice that there are sanity among other stores. I get it that folks can be annoyed when I hand pick my potatoes at the grocery store to match for size and to have good coloured exemplars, but to pick and choose is one of the few delights buy groceries.

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

#712

Post by necovek »

microtonal wrote: post #315
MBCook wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this isn’t a normal app. Apple is the one handing over all the data to the AI service. Couldn’t someone argue that they “knowingly participated“? Do you think they want that risk?

Like they now hand over all your contacts, your location, calendar entries, microphone access, camera access. If you choose to do so. Nothing holds them from having designed this as an API that others can use where the user has permission toggles of what data they want to share with the LLM provider.

Interestingly, they claim to have done this and offer it as an API layer (Trusted System Agent) for other agents to use.

There is just this minor point that their own agent simply doesn't use it and goes directly to lower level interfaces nobody else gets access to: exactly the thing DMA was designed to stop.

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

#713

Post by celiacFun »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #66
eykanal wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google eng mgr here. I've worked on a few projects related to compliance with various government policies. This isn't "assign a two-pizza team to it, will be done in a quarter"; these types of compliance efforts can mean completely redoing multiple core systems to handle privacy, wipeout, audit, reporting, per-location policies, etc etc. These efforts can involve hundreds to thousands of people for multiple years. Su…

Privacy by design isn‘t enormous effort, as every European engineering manager will tell you. It‘s just another reasonable and straightforward set of requirements. Of course, if you want to have privacy-less features in jurisdictions permitting it, that‘s a different story and that‘s a choice.

DMA is about competition not privacy. Apple has privacy concerns with complying related to 3rd party access to customer data.

Another aspect here is that even if Apple tries theirto best to comply, the EU could decide they didn’t do a good enough job and fine them 10% of global revenue. Honestly Apple just might not want to take that risk.

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

#714

Post by celiacFun »

bnj wrote: post #27
afavour wrote: post #2

Apple said "hey, can we not comply with the law", the EU said no, so it didn't launch. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I can see why Apple might want to request an 18 month exemption, there's clearly extra work required to comply with EU regulations. But on the other hand it also feels like a straightforward play for consumer sympathy: let them get used to using it every day for 18 months, then pressure the EU to…

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…

Apple might not want to risk 10% of their global revenue on whether EU regulators like the outcome of their compliance efforts. And there isn’t any real risk of an EU based startup competing in this space like there would be in China.

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

#715

Post by celiacFun »

inetknght wrote: post #274
miohtama wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it does not matter what you do in the end. If you are Big Tech the EU will sue regardless and always finds an excuse.

Do you think this is a problem with the EU? I don't. I think it's a problem in the way that Big Tech operates: by function of theft and laundering of data, and by screwing end-users and consumers in favor of profits.

It may be a problem with EU regulations. It’s hard to see how Apple could be certain they had complied with the EU DMA law, given its based on vague outcomes rather than clear requirements with extremely large penalties. The fact the EU was only willing to require the DMA regulations be met by large foreign companies doesn’t inspire confidence.

And it’s not like there is a thriving tech ecosystem of successful EU tech companies showing how it’s done. So there is a lot of ambiguity on how companies can reasonably comply without huge risk of 10% global revenue.

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

#716

Post by Rohansi »

stouset wrote: post #709
Rohansi wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In this space, sure. AI only exists and is improving because of extensive data collection. That's why Apple licensed models from Google. Anyone can go and download and run open-weight models, and many allow commercial use. If Apple opened it up I'm sure you would see new options which respect user privacy pop up.

Just look at Apple's stance on third-party web browsers to see what I'm talking about. There are browsers which respect user privacy, have good security, etc. but Apple uses the same excuse there: only Apple can be trusted to do it right.

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

#718

Post by [deleted] »

stouset wrote: post #623
Forgeties79 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one complains (out loud) about US regulations either. Ultimately it’s about the weight you can throw as well as PR. Probably easier for Apple to make the EU look bad and drag their feet on it. I imagine they’re still not thrilled about the Lightening->USB-C change

Apple was literally the first major company to go all-in on USB-C. They shipped entire devices that only had USB-C ports. If anything, I would wager they were happy about it. They were going to have to do it anyway, and it would inevitably cause friction for users who were already invested in Lightning cables and third-party devices. The EU forcing this just meant they could shift the blame for any negative sentiment…

[deleted]

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

#719

Post by mrln »

miroljub wrote: post #673
mrln wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the democratic process in the EU deserves its criticism, this is plain wrong. EU citizens can vote for the EU parliament.

And EU Parliament can't propose a new law. Or propose to change a law. How super democratic.

Yup, but laws have to be approved by the EU parliament and that's not just a formality. As I said, I do think it is valid to critizise that system, but what you stated is plain wrong and even when I pointed it out you wouldn't admit it.

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

#720

Post by KoolKat23 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #704
KoolKat23 wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 astound…

You're correct on me posting the wrong link sorry. Thank you for the detailed reply.

But I disagree slightly with your take on the secrecy thing. Many of those discussions are diplomatic or internal administration. It is normal for these things to be kept private even in domestic governments. As it can put the state at a disadvantage to have the matters disclosed publicly (the state acts on behalf of the people).

There seems to definitely be shortcomings in transparency however on legislative debates like you mention, and should atleast have a period of public consultation on all of them. Also the presidency sets the talking points and just ignore legislative proposals they don't like.

It is democratic but yes I 100% agree it's entirely open for abuse, and I'm sadly sure is being abused. Separately and unrelated, imo lobbyists should not feature on the system at all.

Legislative matters are supposedly not secret and appointments can be (whether it's wrong or right is a bit grey imo, and that isn't a good thing).

1. The European Council The European Council primarily decisions by consensus. However, where the EU treaties specify a formal vote, certain appointments allow for or require a secret ballot. When it is used: Secret votes are strictly reserved for specific appointments or personnel decisions, most notably the election of the President of the European Council. Legal Basis: Article 4(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Council states that a secret ballot shall be held if requested by any member of the European Council supported by a simple majority. 2. The Council of the European Union Because the Council of the European Union acts as a legislative body, its operations are bound by strict transparency requirements under the Treaty of Lisbon. Legislative Debates: When the Council deliberates or votes on a draft legislative act, the meeting must be public, and voting records are made visible. Secret votes are prohibited for legislative matters. Non-Legislative/Administrative Matters: Secret ballots are permitted only for specific appointments or selections to individual positions (such as nominating members of the European Central Bank Executive Board or Court of Auditors) if a member state requests it and the decision receives majority support to proceed secretly.

And dog welfare being across borders make sense legally (single market) and ethically.

Post reply on HN