I suspect this will further complicate an already complicated area.

https://www.insideprivacy.com/gdpr/gdpr-rights/court-of-justice-of-the-eu-decides-that-gdpr-right-of-access-allows-data-subjects-to-request-the-identity-of-each-data-recipient/

Court of Justice of the EU Decides that GDPR Right of Access Allows Data Subjects to Request the Identity of Each Data Recipient

On January 12, 2023, the Court of Justice of the EU (“Court”) decided that the GDPR’s right of access gives a data subject the choice between asking a controller for (i) the identity of each data recipient to whom the controller will or has disclosed the data subject’s personal data or (ii) only the categories of data recipients. The controller must comply with the data subject’s request, unless it is impossible to identify those recipients (e.g., because they are not yet known) or the controller demonstrates that the data subject’s access request is “manifestly unfounded or excessive.”

According to the Court, this interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR is in line with the GDPR’s principle of transparency and is necessary to enable data subjects to exercise their other GDPR rights (e.g., right of rectification, erasure and opposition). This interpretation is also confirmed by Article 19 GDPR, which expressly grants data subjects the right to receive from the controller the name of each data recipient, in the context of the controller’s obligation to inform all the recipients of the exercise of the data subject’s rights of rectification, erasure and opposition.

A failure to evolve or are we exposing weaknesses that have always been exploitable?

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-01-15/hacked-evidence-and-stolen-data-swamp-english-courts

Hacked evidence and stolen data swamp English courts

A multimillion-pound high court case between an authoritarian Gulf emirate and an Iranian-American businessman has revealed how hacked evidence is being used by leading law firms to advance their clients’ claims.

The case has included allegations that a former Metropolitan Police officer hired Indian hackers and that lawyers from a top City firm held a secret “perjury school” in the Swiss Alps to prepare false witness testimonies about how they got hold of illegally obtained information.

In November the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Sunday Times exposed the criminal activities of Aditya Jain, a 31-year-old computer security expert who set up a “hack-for-hire” operation from his apartment in Gurugram, India.

… A striking feature of the English legal system is that a judge will accept hacked emails as evidence in court in the interests of justice unless persuaded to exclude it. Peter Ashford, a London solicitor and expert in the admissibility of evidence, claims the English system is “the most liberal”. He added: “Even if you’ve done the hacking, you’ve still got a pretty good chance of getting it in [to the court].”

Do you suppose they have a smarter version of ChatGPT than we do?

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-trounces-U.S.-in-AI-research-output-and-quality

China trounces U.S. in AI research output and quality

… Looking at quantity, the number of AI papers exploded from about 25,000 in 2012 to roughly 135,000 in 2021. This mirrors the AI boom that began around 2012, when deep learning came to the fore.

China has consistently stood atop the heap in terms of the volume of papers, the study shows. For 2021, it produced 43,000 papers – roughly twice as many as the U.S.