Clearview doesn't let Europeans delete themselves anymore
twitter.com
twitter.com
There's not a lot Europeans can do about it, nor is there much Americans can do about European countries doing things Americans don't like. Take, for example, the copyright lobby; they'd love to take down libdvdcss so you need to pay for licensed software to play DVDs on your computer, but French law allows them to operate freely.
Companies like Clearview (or YCombinator for that matter, as HN accounts can't be deleted), don't strictly need to comply with the privacy laws as long as nobody is willing to enforce them. Illegal (and unethical) as that may be, you'll have a hard time convincing any kind of European government agency to take action.
Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, Ford, etc (and VW, Zeiss, etc in the inverse) comply because they themselves directly operate in foreign regions. And smaller manufacturers do because they have a relationship with a distributor.
Obviously, the lesson here is that you can be prosecuted for doing stuff that the USA doesn't like, if it's annoying a politically-connected entity enough [1]. The libdvdcss thing is probably just the French being awkward in that way they love to do; if it had been the UK they would have rolled over without a word of complaint.
Europe probably has the same reach, but less inclination to do anything with it (imho).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
[1] also see Julian Assange, who at the heart of it is being imprisoned and extradited for annoying the USA.
As much as we have fun co-bulling with UK, this statement does not make sense.
Allowing libdvdcss is consistent with a long story about the medium/support/distribution not being legally sanctified against the content. Beyond the chiming about entertaining content (MP3/MP4 VS CD/DVD), the point is to never let anyone/anything (individuals, professionals, and most important public services), being locked to a particular support if their think its not in there interest. Before the DRM mess, this has been a source of problem when some software editors fall down and we had billions of documents in a closed format and some research project to convert those files back to something readable (which is kind of non-sense). If support and distribution sucks, you should not being locked to it and can choose to invest time and money to change it. The simple fact you are ready to invest in unlocking yourself is almost considered good enough. The “Cour de cassation” (most important juridical instance) always decides in favor of content owner than content distributor. I suspect the globalization makes those statement even more important as you don’t want your public service to be locked down to software solution of another country.
I don’t think it’s that much award. Many countries are doing the same and some considers copyright as an American soft power, especially for softwares. Content openness is such a thing it has modified the way even big software companies are making money.
Hope this helps.
They instead scramble your username, because preserving conversations is more important to them than obeying the law.
– exercising the right of freedom of expression and information.
– compliance with a legal obligation.
– for certain reasons of public interest in the area of public health.
– for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes, or certain statistical purposes.
– for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.
CCPA's exemptions are similar.
Accounts can be renamed, and specific comments can be deleted, which seems to cover GDPR in my reading of it.
They restrict the time a message can be edited, and after the timer expires you can't delete it anymore. They do allow you to delete your account but your messages will still remain with a numeric "Anonymous User #1234" identifier.
Such an approach is justified using the exceptions under Article 17.3.A, which states that "[The right to erasure] shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information". They argue that deleting comments has a significant negative impact on the discussion as a whole, and it would be a violation of the other users' freedom of expression.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this interpretation, but as far as I am aware it hasn't been tested in court yet so who knows.
I would agree with you, if all companies and individuals in the world could openly violate right of US citizens outside of the US without the extradition and sanctions risk.
It would be fair to drop all extradition agreements with the US if the US allows such behavior from their companies or enforce the extradition and jail time for C-level management of such companies based in the US if they leave the country anywhere (like it happens with others).
[1] https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news-and-announcements/20...
edit: Edited to indicate that this ruling does not protect all Canadians, just those in three provinces.
One thing to note, is that the OPC decision did not protect all Canadians, just those in British Columbia, Alberta and Québec.
[1] https://mcmillan.ca/insights/clearview-ai-ordered-to-comply-...
So the Canadian government doesn't mind them collecting and using information on Canadians if they live in Saskatchewan, the maritime provinces, or the territories? How strange. Are the people in those territories/provinces 2nd class citizens or something?
The confusion comes from the finding that Clearview AI violated provincial privacy legislation (BC,AB,ON,QC) as well as federal privacy legislation (PIPEDA). There is a very lengthy report by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, resulting from a joint federal-provincial investigation, regarding the operations of Clearview AI and articulating how it was violating Canadian law:
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investig...
Tech does a lot more than that.
No technology was 'endangered' by WW2.
In fact, it enabled many new technologies.
I applaud the confidence with which you have reached back through time and chosen world war 2 as an event wherein nothing of intellectual value was lost. To wit, survivorship bias is not a real thing, and while I’ve heard of object permanence, nobody has proven to me that my mom doesn’t cease to exist when she puts her hands in front of her face.
If you think there's a substantive argument to be made here, then using this boorish tone, that most passing readers can probably detect in seconds, is bizarrely self-discrediting.
If your dead set on going down this path, my advice would be that maybe some sort of super-genius could impress and bamboozle HN with this kind of writing style, but that's hardly possible at a lower competence.
Mass surveillance is corrosive in ways that’s don’t directly destroy infrastructure but can both indirectly do so and prevent the investment in it. Someone acting alone can cause hundreds of millions in damage fairly easily. Society can’t survive even a small fraction of people going down that route.
You build resilience not through law enforcement but by reducing the need for it.
Now that doesn't always work as intended, but if we are unhappy with a particular government we can usually vote them out without a bloody revolution, which has some value in itself.
Throughout history there always has been a number — the fraction of the population you need behind you in order to stay in power, or vice versa how big of a populations will you can go against. Certain social practises and technologies can lower that number. Surveillance is one of them unless we are also surveilling our betters, but the trend is that politicians and corporations are becoming more and more intransparent while the little people are more and more transparent.
Many AI driven surveillance also suck at detecting relatively rare occurances like terrorism, but they are really good at detecting demonstrations and helping you to identify the participants after.
You can do a lot of things and still have your primary role be something different from those things...
If Clearview AI has no nexus in the EU (offices, employees, customers, servers, etc) and refuses to do business in the EU they have no obligation to abide by EU laws, even if that law covers processing data internationally.
Ultimately they would need to ask the US to charge or extradite the Clearview executives under US law or an international treaty.
What? If you're an Australian citizen you are bound by many Australian laws under the concept of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. This is mostly used to charge for offenses around CSA, human trafficking, etc. but also applies to drug use. While it's very unlikely you'd be charged for violating laws around e-cigarettes, that doesn't mean the law doesn't apply.
Article 50 of the GDPR actually acknowledges they have no enforcement authority unless they can mutual agreements with foreign states.
A common example I can give you is a lot of countries believe the death penalty is inhumane and it’s against basic human rights. So countries, even ones that have extradition treaties, will refuse to extradite to the US, no matter the evidence or conviction if there’s even a possibility of the death penalty. This has happened a number of times.
Australia criminalizes users of drugs while overseas? Or just bans/restricts entry from non-citizens that admit to such use?
Correct. I mentioned that in the last sentence.
> So it's legal for me to hack into European datacenters
This is where it gets murky. Clarview AI is scraping data uploaded to US based websites, and agreeing to terms that allow for the data to be redistributed. In your example there is a direct nexus to the EU.
Like if you mailed a pipe bomb to the EU and blew someone up, it's illegal under US law to murder people, it has nothing to do with EU law.
I'm sure the US would be quick to extradite though.
Totally not a lawyer.
Countries will refuse to extradite you for something which is legal in that country. After all, according to them you have done nothing wrong.
If a foreign country could simply register and collect judgements against Americans unrestricted, someone would have found a small island country by now to file daily million dollar judgements against Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.
Therefore potentially enabling extradition?
"He didn't delete this database column with my email address in it when I asked him to" is not getting treated seriously in any US court.
https://iapp.org/news/a/california-governor-signs-ca-delete-...
"Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland 31 years after fleeing trial"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/27/roman-polanski-...
I can vouch for them zero, but we use them for more-or-less the same reasons. It's still "online", but probably the same degree as an iCloud photo store.
I'm curious what it's like for parents navigating those waters in today's online world
They do however display their art in the hallway.
Don't kid yourself that ideology is a protection. Who turns the key of the turnkey facist state is still an open question. Probably less resistance if you /claim/ to be fighting the extreme right at the moment. May well flip and be done by the /claim/ of fighting commnunism.
Stand on principle. Always. Especially in favour of those you loathe. Ignore the politics surrounding the principle if you really don't want a dictatorship. Sadly you can fully expect to be accused of being a supporter of Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi, Putin, Hamas, paedophile rings, organised crime and in general everything evil when you do the principled right thing.
Great.
Europe turning into China at rapid pace.
2. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:
a. the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or
b. the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.
3. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.
It may be in the GDPR’s text but they have no jurisdiction. Put simply, the EU has no authority whatsoever to create law outside of its own borders.
To instrument with which to extend the reach of such laws as the GDPR would be international treaties.
Only with regarding to item a and b. Item b is irrelevant since it's for monitoring EU citizens within EU. Item a is questionable since it's for goods and services offered, i.e. marketed to, EU citizens. For non-EU companies and websites that don't market to or offer goods/services to EU citizens, I don't see how GDPR applies.