The policy defines "Services" as the mobile app and website. How is building a general purpose model for what the average fridge looks like used to customise either the website or the app? This feels like the kind of flimsy reasoning that only holds so long as no one is challenging it.
Easy. They provide this new general purpose model through the website. Bam, that's a Service that uses photos to customize. They can also expand what counts as a Service unilaterally.
With this broad of a privacy policy, they can start MyFitnessPal.com/UncroppedCandidPhotos where they let people search for users by name, email, or phone and sell your photos to the highest bidder, and that still would count as a Service that uses photos to customize. You consented to it!
> This feels like the kind of flimsy reasoning that only holds so long as no one is challenging it.
No, it is written by professional lawyers to be as permissive as possible.
> No, it is written by professional lawyers to be as permissive as possible.
But you repeat myself.
OK, say they do all that, that isn't customisation (I would argue) it is a new service that was built from unconsented data scraped from users of the pre-existing services. Call that splitting hairs if you like, but this looks like a risk to me.
If this is real and not a joke, I bet some DPA will disagree if this is brought to their attention. Effective consent under GDPR requires informed consent.
Giving their policy an (admittedly quick) skim there doesn't seem to be any section that mentions AI, LLMs, training any kind of model, using image data from barcode pictures, etc. I'd be very curious to see the explanation of how this is baked into the policy.
I’m not exactly shocked that it could exist. But this usage (beyond the scope of processing barcodes) seems like it couldn’t be construed to fit into the normal avenues of data collection under a privacy policy.
Also with regard to training specifically, this policy was created in late 2020 so I don’t know how it would cover generative models.
GDPR would be the obvious one, particularly the bits about them not being allowed to refuse service if you don't agree to data processing that isn't strictly necessary to provide the service (e.g. sharing data with insurance companies)
I guess there’s the fact it made it to Phase III before they canned it meaning more people were hopeful than if action were taken to stop progress sooner.
But, how can progress be made if failure is disallowed because of unknowingly giving people false hope?
It made it to phase III: fine, there was enough evidence in the dubious phase II to perhaps justify a further trial.
But selling it to patients as an ALS therapy in the meantime outside of that trial, when it looked very dubious that it did anything-- that was a little questionable. The FDA overruling their own advisory committee to make this possible looks like a regulatory failure.
People take all sorts of stuff they hope will help but probably doesn't. Vitamins, crystals, cups of tea etc. I can't see how they make things much worse.
As a legal strategy, could it be these large companies with indemnification clauses want to take these cases on rather than risk smaller companies getting sued without adequate resources and therefore defining a suboptimal precedent?
If that were their line of thought, they could always step in on a case-by-case basis. No company is going to say no to an offer of Google paying all their legal costs and paying any damages if the case is lost.
I’m baffled by your comment. This wouldn’t benefit the government at all. They just want their money and wouldn’t want to collapse a major American enterprise over money they will collect by any means necessary.
It's just a classic social media hot take with no thought behind it, designed to get that instant sweet dopamine from upvotes rather than advance the discussion.
30 years of the web and we still haven't worked out how to discourage this (HN does a better job than most though)
>designed to get that instant sweet dopamine from upvotes
I made a simple comment along the same lines in some other thread some time ago, and got nothing but downvotes.
>It's just a classic social media hot take with no thought behind it
Said the pot to the kettle /s
>It's a sign of people's discontent with corporation blatantly avoiding laws - especially taxation - when they get punished due to smallest mistakes.
+1 to this. Did you know that PG&E (California energy utility) is a convicted felon? It's meaningless to them.
"The company was placed on probation in 2017 when it was convicted of six felony crimes connected to one of its natural gas pipelines that exploded in 2010, killing eight people. Since a company can’t go to prison for committing a crime, PG&E faced a $3 million fine and the maximum length of probation. "[0] [emphasis added]
> I’m baffled by your comment. This wouldn’t benefit the government at all. They just want their money and wouldn’t want to collapse a major American enterprise over money they will collect by any means necessary.
Ah America the land of rule of law*
*Only enforced if small and/or poor, wealthy and powerful only need to give Government their cut("fine") and no one is held accountable(often even without admitting any wrongdoing). It's rotting the justice system because people see this and no longer care to abide by any of them(cops won't catch vast majority of criminals, for various reasons so fear of punishment isn't a thing). Including cops that have no obligation to enforce any laws, and they don't, so they can play Pokémon Go in peace(but they can break your rights as long they don't know it's a right and it's not widely enforced by courts).
Why would it? The people who made the decision not to pay are the executives not the shareholders. It's the same situation as if you ask if you can borrow 10 dollars so I lend you 10 dollars, then you don't pay your taxes and they put me in jail for it.
By all means hold executives accountable. If some of them did criminal things they should face criminal consequences - I'm all for that. Up to and including jail time. But sending shareholders to jail for something a company does is crazy unless they are also somehow complicit in it.
It’s extremely dead! Its header file hasn’t been touched in 30 years. SMH my head that anyone would believe that a project that doesn’t get nightly updates would NOT be instantly declared dead.
Very cool language, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the purpose of the language in the original post. Can this be used in embedded systems too?
> I don't understand why freedom of speech is such exception that it has no restriction.
I think most people are afraid where the restriction will be placed if those in power decided. For example, as a sort of weird and contradictory but illustrative example, what if I had power over you and dictated you aren’t allowed to question having restrictions because that’s dangerous to the idea of free speech. You might want to point out how that’s hypocritical, stupid, and contradictory but I have police powers and can arrest you. Some linguists believe then that eventually the idea atrophies after generations are not allowed to discuss it their thought process changes to be incapable of questioning it.
Questioning things and being able to freely explain why you are questioning them is why it’s considered so important. It allows people to change each other’s minds in both directions based on who has the most persuasive argument rather than who has the biggest stick.
But this argument works identically with freedom of movement, access to health, ...
For example, it is the people in power how decide and enforce border control and restricted area delimitation. And it is people in power who decide how the healthcare system works.
This argument is basically a slippery slope fallacy: freedom of speech should be absolute, because I can imagine some restrictions being used for bad it means there should be no restriction at all.
I perfectly understand why 0 freedom of speech at all is bad. My question is why people are framing the situation as "it's 100% or 0%" and why they are doing that only with the freedom of speech and not all the other rights.
I don't know, but one explanation can be that with an unrestricted freedom of speech, they can profit of not having to assume the responsibility for their acts while they will themselves not have much damage done to them. It is not the case for the other rights: usually, saying that I want 0 or 100% freedom of movement means that I either can't move myself or either have to accept a migration that I don't like. But if I use freedom of speech to create a dangerous climate upon some minority groups I don't like, I have interest of defending the 100% freedom of speech: they can themselves use the freedom of speech to say whatever they want, it will not convince the majority, because they are in minority.
> It allows people to change each other’s minds in both directions based on who has the most persuasive argument rather than who has the biggest stick.
One remark on that: "the most persuasive argument" can be as bad as "the biggest stick". Between "it's easy, it's all due to this ethnic minority" and "it's complicated, we have to accept we have some part of responsibility in this situation, yet it does not mean the other camp is all innocent, but it does not mean the other camp is intrinsically guilty, ...", the first one is more persuasive, but it is very unjust, and it is as bad as being slave to the biggest stick. The only difference is that with the biggest stick, the common guy is the victim, with this example of derive of the most persuasive argument, the common guy not the victim. But an unjust situation does not become magically just because the victim is not you.
The broad public support is why your definition of censorship and the article's are incompatible, why it behooves you to explain the difference, and why it's lazy to invoke Orwell and complain about definitions without explanation.
I agree the FCC is all about censorship, but word games and snark is such a lazy and ineffective way to debate.
