General_Effort
@General_Effort@lemmy.world
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 10 hours ago:
it would much easier if you would provide a law that prohibits this.
Again?
Source2
I can’t see that either of these was written by someone qualified or that they have a good reputation. You should take more care to find credible sources.
I suggest that you check the data protection office of your local government. There may be subtle differences between countries. For the UK, that would be the ICO. But beware, that the UK is no longer part of the EU and its interpretation of the GDPR may be looser.
If you’re into photography, copyright and other laws also need to be considered. There’s a lot of diversity between EU countries in these things.
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 10 hours ago:
You still thinking that you don’t have the right to photograph people in a public place and post them on photography forums for instance.
Put like that, that’s exactly correct. That’s not a recognized right in the EU, unlike data protection. That does not mean that it is forbidden, provided that the GDPR is followed.
Beginning to think you’re trolling or you’re that dense that NASA might mistake you for a black hole.
I have very patiently and kindly answered your questions and corrected your misunderstandings. I am not sure what you expect of me. Should I google explanatory links for you and paste the content here? I feel it would be rude to treat you like you are a child.
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 11 hours ago:
Dude it literally states that they shall provides exceptions to former chapters as shown here
Yes. That is what the member states are instructed to do. What is unclear?
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 11 hours ago:
So I am free to take whoever’s photo I choose and in fact that extends to publishing those photos online
That is unambiguously wrong. Please refer to Article 4 (1) for a definition of personal data.
Also, your tone leaves something to be desired.
You are quite welcome to look this up on the UK ICO’s website. It is funded by British tax money to provide information to people such as you. I am providing you free tutoring on my own time and you don’t seem to value that favor.
Article 85
Please refer to the article in question. You will find that it provides no exceptions. It contains instructions for national governments,
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 13 hours ago:
I have provided the requested Articles in the GDPR. “Presumption of privacy” is not a concept in the GDPR. The GDPR is not a privacy law. It is concerned with data protection.
Debates in either Chamber of UK parliament are not a source of law. Especially not when they took place a decade before the GDPR came into force.
Do you need any further help?
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 15 hours ago:
I know that because I do a lot of street photography and there is no law in the UK forbidding photography of people in public spaces,
I didn’t write there was one. It sounds like you “know” that photography is “protected” because you need that to be true.
it’s quite easy for you to Google this
Indeed. For anyone who’s not good at googling things, I recommend the UK ICO.
but I can’t provide you with a law condoning it as that’s not how it works.
That’s true. You can’t because you are wrong. You should know that your take on the GDPR is nonsense. It sounds like you violate it on a habitual basis.
Again show me in GDPR where it expressly forbids marching a face to a public dataset.
What do you mean “again”?
The GDPR forbids this in, of course, Article 6 and, more particularly, Article 9, but also gives exceptions.
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 15 hours ago:
As I wrote, the UK does not have the AI Act. This is also a case where EU GDPR and UK GDPR diverge.
Finally, I never claimed it’s automatically illegal.
Yeah, and some of it is even true.
Most of it, in my experience. I do not know why this community is so committed to disinformation.
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 1 day ago:
I know for a fact
Do you remember why you “know” this? Just curious.
I would need a law showing that matching a face against publicly available datasets of faces is illegal as that seems insane and difficult to police.
Surely you have noticed that there is a lot of criticism of the GDPR and EU tech regulation.
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 1 day ago:
What’s highly illegal in Europe? Taking a photo or using publicly available images to match that photo to?
-
Taking a photo for that purpose is likely out.
-
Matching it to any publically available images is definitely out.
-
Creating a database of face images for searching: Nope.
-
Using this system is very problematic.
Some of this is because of the GDPR. So it’s likely to be illegal in the UK, as well. And some is because of the AI Act (in particular 4. but also 3. to some degree). That’s not something that needs to concern Brits.
-
- Comment on ‘FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops 1 day ago:
Highly illegal in Europe, obvs. Looking forward to finding out how this will go in the US.
- Comment on Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever 3 days ago:
So, which one of them heard boss music?
- Comment on [🇨🇭|Switzerland] Google, X/Twitter and Other Online Services are Set to Pay Copyright Fees for Displaying Short Extracts From Newspaper Articles. 3 days ago:
This was also tried in Canada and Australia. Here’s the story in the EU:
Germany made this kind of law in 2013. This was struck down in 2019 because of a formality. The EU had not been notified in advance, as would have been required in such a matter. (outdated and incomplete WP entry)
Then the industry lobbied the EU and got such a law enacted EU wide in 2021. The press is still extremely influential in Europe and causes a lot of damage as it struggles against its inevitable decline.
The problem with these laws, as others have pointed out, is that tech companies will simply follow them. Outrageous, no? Well, it is when you’re a copyright head. The press made licensing deals, but they want much, much more money.
The latest splash was a few months ago when Google made an experiment to better estimate the revenue they generate from news content. In France, the press went to court and got an injunction that stopped the experiment.
- Comment on Google releases Magenta RealTime, an open source AI model for live music creation 4 days ago:
Neat. Looking forward to seeing what people build with that.
- Comment on Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and ‘A Better Tomorrow’: AI-Powered Kung Fu Film Plan Debuts in Shanghai 6 days ago:
You upvote to increase visibility and downvote to decrease visibility. Same as on Reddit.
- Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and ‘A Better Tomorrow’: AI-Powered Kung Fu Film Plan Debuts in Shanghaivariety.com ↗Submitted 6 days ago to technology@lemmy.world | 8 comments
- Comment on I Counted All of the Yurts in Mongolia Using Machine Learning 6 days ago:
I’d say, when there’s a policy and its goals aren’t reached, that’s a policy failure. If people don’t like the policy, that’s an issue but it’s a separate issue.
It doesn’t seem likely that people prefer living in tents, though. But to be fair, the government may be doing the best it can. It’s ranked “Flawed Democracy” by The Economist Democracy Index. That’s really good, I’d say, considering the circumstances. They are placed slightly ahead of Argentina and Hungary.
OP has this to say:
Due to the large number of people moving to urban locations, it has been difficult for the government to build the infrastructure needed for them. The informal settlements that grew from this difficulty are now known as ger districts. There have been many efforts to formalize and develop these areas. The Law on Allocation of Land to Mongolian Citizens for Ownership, passed in 2002, allowed for existing ger district residents to formalize the land they settled, and allowed for others to receive land from the government into the future.
Along with the privatization of land, the Mongolian government has been pushing for the development of ger districts into areas with housing blocks connected to utilities. The plan for this was published in 2014 as Ulaanbaatar 2020 Master Plan and Development Approaches for 2030. Although progress has been slow (Choi and Enkhbat 7), they have been making progress in building housing blocks in ger distrcts. Residents of ger districts sell or exchange their plots to developers who then build housing blocks on them. Often this is in exchange for an apartment in the building, and often the value of the apartment is less than the land they originally had (Choi and Enkhbat 15).
Based on what I’ve read about the ger districts, they have been around since at least the 1970s, and progress on developing them has been slow. When ineffective policy results in a large chunk of the populace generationally living in yurts on the outskirts of urban areas, it’s clear that there is failure.
Choi, Mack Joong, and Urandulguun Enkhbat. “Distributional Effects of Ger Area Redevelopment in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.” International Journal of Urban Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 50–68. DOI.org (Crossref), doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1571433.
- Comment on I Counted All of the Yurts in Mongolia Using Machine Learning 6 days ago:
What qualification does someone need for that statement?
Thanks for the thought, anyway. I hadn’t come across the idea that tent cities might be a good thing, actually.
- Comment on Hertz, showing the difference between science and engineering 1 week ago:
mittelhochdeutsch (mitteldeutsch) vunke, althochdeutsch funcho, entstanden aus den mit -n- gebildeten Formen des Feuer zugrunde liegenden Substantivs
www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Funke#Bedeutung-1
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Comment on Hertz, showing the difference between science and engineering 1 week ago:
“Knallfunkensender”
Literally “Bang-Sparks-Sender”.
Are you sure it’s because of the radio spectrum bang? I always thought it was because of the audible bang.
If someone operated such a thing today, any guesses what the death zone for electronic devices would be?
- Comment on Hertz, showing the difference between science and engineering 1 week ago:
It really is from “Funkentechnik”: “Spark technology”. I wonder how many people appreciate the post for the cute etymology and how many because it sounds funny.
Good information for ham radio people, too. Hobby sounds too geeky? Just say you’re into Über-Funk-Parties.
- Comment on Hertz, showing the difference between science and engineering 1 week ago:
Fun fact: The german word for using a radio is “funken”; literally “to spark”. A radioman is, or was, a “Funker”. When you are talking over the radio, you are doing it “Über Funk”.
- Submitted 1 week ago to technology@lemmy.world | 2 comments
- Comment on no thanks 1 week ago:
Oh no. It moves.
“It’s a coordinated superorganism, acting and moving as a whole.”
Oh no no.
A 10-millimeter (0.4-inch) nematode tower twists and folds as the mass of worms reaches for the lid of its petri dish.
Oh nonononono
- Comment on Scientists discover that feeding AI models 10% 4chan trash actually makes them better behaved 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Napster/BitTorrent for machine learning? 2 weeks ago:
What would a use case look like?
I assume that the latency will make it impractical to train something that’s LLM-sized. But even for something small, wouldn’t a data center be more efficient?
- Comment on Reddit sues Anthropic, alleging its bots accessed Reddit more than 100,000 times since last July 2 weeks ago:
I think the only way to truly delete anything from reddit would be living in EU and enforcing a GDPR request, but even in that case, I believe it would be very difficult to check they actually comply.
Wouldn’t work. GDPR is not copyright. Deleting the username is enough, unless you have doxed yourself in some post.
Rather, it can be argued that GDPR requires restoring comments at least in some situations. Comments may be necessary context to understand replies or even other posts.
- Comment on Reddit sues Anthropic, alleging its bots accessed Reddit more than 100,000 times since last July 2 weeks ago:
Not quite.
Generally, sites aren’t liable for user generated content as long as they follow some rules. They need to take down illegal content and provide some way of reporting such content. In the US, that’s the whole DMCA takedown thing. The whole content ID thing, that YouTube does, might not be strictly necessary, but it was rolled out in response to a high-stakes lawsuit. The EU is, as always, more strict in these matters.
People are not punished for things beyond their control (but mind that a fine is not the same as damages). If you are sent illegal content, that you have not requested, you shouldn’t expect formal punishment, though the investigation may be punishing in itself. If you simply don’t know how caching works, you’re probably in trouble.
But this was about copyright. I don’t think you get punished anywhere for holding some copyright. Say some Japanese Manga artist travels to some European state where some of their works are illegal. They’re not going to get arrested for that. Anyone who brings such illegal works into the country will not be so lucky, regardless of copyright.
- Comment on Reddit sues Anthropic, alleging its bots accessed Reddit more than 100,000 times since last July 2 weeks ago:
You don’t see why you would need your own servers? Do you see why unauthorized access to a computer system might be illegal?
- Comment on Reddit sues Anthropic, alleging its bots accessed Reddit more than 100,000 times since last July 2 weeks ago:
“Violating copyright without a licence” is a lovely turn of phrase. You must be the valedictorian of the Lemmy School of Copyright.
- Comment on Reddit sues Anthropic, alleging its bots accessed Reddit more than 100,000 times since last July 2 weeks ago:
No. I am not aware of any law that makes you liable by holding or claiming the copyright to some content. EG you may have to pay damages for libel, but not because you have copyright to the libelous statement.