It looks like Meta misread this entirely. Did I miss something?
Meta Behavioral Advertising Restrictions That Began in Norway Expand to EU Ban
Earlier this year, Norway’s data protection agency deemed that Meta’s behavioral advertising practices were out of compliance with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and began levying a daily fine against the company. After failing to stop it with an injunction, Meta is now looking at an EU ban after the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) reached a decision on the case.
The terms of the decision require Meta to stop behavioral advertising across most of the EU by November 10. Meta has already declared that it will start asking EU users for consent, and will steer those that do not toward a new paid subscription option that will provide access to all of its services (such as Instagram) for the equivalent of about $10.50 per month.
The Norwegian behavioral advertising ban initiated in August of this year and came with an order to Meta to pay 1 million kroner per day (about $100,000) that it remained in violation. Norway’s law limits the time a company can be fined in this way to three months, and that initial action expired on November 3.
Meta reportedly let the fines pile up while continuing to conduct business as usual, even after an Oslo court refused its request for a temporary injunction in late August. With quarterly revenues of about seven billion dollars in Europe, Meta may have been content simply paying off the accumulated fines at some point. Norway’s data protection board thus opted to refer the case to the EDPB for an urgent binding decision on an EU ban, given that it involves a finding of a GDPR violation.
The EDPB has now agreed that Meta’s model for user consent does not meet GDPR requirements. That means the Norwegian ban has become an EU ban, and Meta may be subject to further fines in other countries. Meta has said that it will cooperate with the decision, changing its consent model to actively ask users to opt in. However, it appears that users who choose to opt out will not be able to use the company’s services; that is, unless they purchase the new ad-free subscription.
These new developments may land Meta in even more GDPR hot water. The regulation states that consent must be freely given, something very much complicated if users will be blocked from the service unless they pay to have behavioral advertising removed from the experience. The only clear paths out of the EU ban are informed consent, or switching to a less intrusive advertising model.
I don’t think we could make the same demands here in the US.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/big-tech-face-tougher-rules-targeted-political-ads-eu-2023-11-07/
Big Tech to face tougher rules on targeted political ads in EU
Big Tech firms will face new European Union rules to clearly label political advertising on their platforms, who paid for it and how much and which elections are being targeted, ahead of important votes in the bloc next year.
What did they get right (or wrong) and what did they miss entirely?
From Washington to Brussels: A Comparative Look at the Biden Administration’s Executive Order and the EU’s AI Act
On October 30, 2023, days ahead of government leaders convening in the UK for an international AI Safety Summit, the White House issued an Executive Order (“EO”) outlining an expansive strategy to support the development and deployment of safe and secure AI technologies (for further details on the EO, see our blog here ). As readers will be aware, the European Commission released its proposed Regulation Laying Down Harmonized Rules on Artificial Intelligence (the EU “AI Act”) in 2021 (see our blog here). EU lawmakers are currently negotiating changes to the Commission text, with hopes of finalizing the text by the end of this year, although many of its obligations would only begin to apply to regulated entities in 2026 or later.
The EO and the AI Act stand as two important developments shaping the future of global AI governance and regulation. This blog post discusses key similarities and differences between the two.
What causes AI to make mistakes like this? Would we catch the more subtle errors?
https://www.bespacific.com/ai-search-is-turning-into-the-problem-everyone-worried-about/
AI Search Is Turning Into the Problem Everyone Worried About
The Atlantic [read free]: “There is no easy way to explain the sum of Google’s knowledge. It is ever-expanding. Endless. A growing web of hundreds of billions of websites, more data than even 100,000 of the most expensive iPhones mashed together could possibly store. But right now, I can say this: Google is confused about whether there’s an African country beginning with the letter k. I’ve asked the search engine to name it. “What is an African country beginning with K?” In response, the site has produced a “featured snippet” answer—one of those chunks of text that you can read directly on the results page, without navigating to another website. It begins like so: “While there are 54 recognized countries in Africa, none of them begin with the letter ‘K.’” This is wrong. The text continues: “The closest is Kenya, which starts with a ‘K’ sound, but is actually spelled with a ‘K’ sound. It’s always interesting to learn new trivia facts like this….”
This is Google’s current existential challenge in a nutshell: The company has entered into the generative-AI era with a search engine that appears more complex than ever. And yet it still can be commandeered by junk that’s untrue or even just nonsensical. Older features, like snippets, are liable to suck in flawed AI writing. New features like Google’s own generative-AI tool—something like a chatbot—are liable to produce flawed AI writing. Google’s never been perfect. But this may be the least reliable it’s ever been for clear, accessible facts…”
AI vs AI is one thing. Could you outsmart an AI? What would the AI do if you said certain points were not negotiable?
An AI just negotiated a contract for the first time ever — and no human was involved
… “This is just AI negotiating with AI, right from opening a contract in Word all the way through to negotiating terms and then sending it to DocuSign,” she told CNBC in an interview.
“This is all now handled by the AI, that’s not only legally trained, which we’ve talked about being very important, but also understands your business.”
Apparently this tool must be trained for each type of writing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03479-4
‘ChatGPT detector’ catches AI-generated papers with unprecedented accuracy
A machine-learning tool can easily spot when chemistry papers are written using the chatbot ChatGPT, according to a study published on 6 November in Cell Reports Physical Science1. The specialized classifier, which outperformed two existing artificial intelligence (AI) detectors, could help academic publishers to identify papers created by AI text generators.
“Most of the field of text analysis wants a really general detector that will work on anything,” says co-author Heather Desaire, a chemist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. But by making a tool that focuses on a particular type of paper, “we were really going after accuracy”.
The findings suggest that efforts to develop AI detectors could be boosted by tailoring software to specific types of writing, Desaire says. “If you can build something quickly and easily, then it’s not that hard to build something for different domains.”
No comments:
Post a Comment