Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jedberg

No you can't. If anyone emails you from Gmail, or you mail anyone at Gmail, then they are still using your data.

If someone takes a picture of you and posts it on Instagram, they are still using your data.

The only solution here are new laws about retaining ownership of your data even if it's been uploaded to a third party.

View on HN

You don't own pictures of yourself taken by other people.

You do in some countries

That's not true. You can't publish a photo with me in it and make money without a release form. Training on a photo I took of someone else is definitely a gray area.

But also, laws can be changed, which is my point.

That’s not totally true either. First, it varies quite a bit on jurisdiction (but let’s say U.S.). Second, the lack of model release when it would be required does not mean the model suddenly owns the photograph, it rather just restricts how the owner may use it. Thirdly, in many U.S. states, a model release may only be needed when the photograph is used in promotion of a product, or if it was not taken in public.

IANAL

I absolutely can do that. Laws vary greatly around the world, and your (I'd wager North American) laws don't apply where I am.

LexisNexis makes money taking pictures of me in my car, tagging location data to it and selling that data back to other businesses like Lawyers and Insurance companies. I never signed a release.

If they are training on inbound e-mails from senders without Google accounts residing in or present at the time of sending in two-party consent states, they are likely in violation of the telephone call recording laws of those states.

Got any case law you can cite or are you just making this up?

I'm not familiar with the case law, but e.g.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html

In fact I doubt there's fully relevant case law, as I think the case would be that the trained model is the recording device, and it could be demonstrated that verbatim strings from presumed confidential communications are regurgitated by the model when appropriately prompted.

Google also reads your email for spam filtering purposes, including training their filters which has a financial benefit to themselves as well.

Wouldn't this also be a violation of the same Two Party Consent law that you're trying to apply here?

Pretty sure not. I think there is an implied ownership of the email once I send it. Just like if I send you a letter you now own the letter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com