EU Violates Case Law in Proposed GDPR Big Tech AI Training Carve-Out | Hacker News Reader

EU Violates Case Law in Proposed GDPR Big Tech AI Training Carve-Out

noyb.eu

3 pointspiltdownman3 comments

The EU Commission is attempting to nullify significant privacy protections regarding GDPR and AI under the guise of the "Digital Omnibus" provision, intended only for minor adjustments. These proposed revisions cut to the very core of the ethos and intent of the GDPR legislation - affording BigTech an arsenal of avoidance in terms of future compliance.

Narrowing "Personal Data" Definition: Companies could argue data isn’t "personal" if they can’t identify individuals, exempting them from GDPR compliance.

Weakening Data Subject Rights: Rights like access, deletion, and correction could be limited to "data protection purposes," blocking their use in labor disputes, journalism, or research.

AI Training Free Pass: Tech giants (Google, Meta, OpenAI) could use Europeans’ personal and sensitive data for AI training with minimal safeguards.

Reduced Protection for Sensitive Data: Health, political, and sexual orientation data would only be protected if "directly revealed," not if deduced.

Remote Device Access: Companies could pull data from users’ devices for vague purposes like "security" or "statistics," risking invasive data collection.

tl;dr Germany is again pushing for macro-level EU reforms that bypass legislative safeguards, violate existing precedent, and disenfranchises EU Citizens in favour of BigTech. The legitimacy of GDPR as a democratic safeguard against Corporate Malfeasance will be effectively nullified in one fell swoop.

Actual title: "EU Commission internal draft would wreck core principles of the GDPR"

New statutes can of course "violate" existing case law. This is usually the point of changing the law...

I'm not sure you understand how large parts of the draft violate European Conventions, the Charter of Fundamental Rights or settled Court of Justice case-law - not to mention that almost all Member States that gave feedback say they want no change. Germany did not provide evidence for the need of said reforms - it is unclear where these demands originate from, making this use of fast-track reform procedures even more sinister.

More to the point, there is two decades of case law supporting a broad and nuanced understanding of what constitutes "personal data". This proposal runs rough-shod over this established precedent in its entirety and is in clear violation of both CJEU case law and Article 8(2) of the Charter as regards the right to informational self-determination.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com