noyb.eu’s Post

Could the introduction of the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) on April 7, 2024, lead to potential fines exceeding those of the GDPR, considering APRA’s provision for a private right of action that permits individuals to sue for significant privacy harm? Furthermore, with APRA’s ability to enforce civil penalties, damages, restitution, and additional consumer compensation for breaches, coupled with the chance of more stringent state laws enhancing APRA, and likely that the total penalties for non-compliance might surpass the financial implications stipulated by GDPR? https://lnkd.in/eTdfUDdg

It's good to read new, interesting, positive news.... albeit even if it takes until 2025 at the earliest, it will have become old news by then... but with the pace that AI is developing... I am sure there will be more BIG news before then anyway... I wonder what we in the UK are going to do in response to this... (well, not we as in including me, but sure you get my point). #AI #artificialintelligence #machinelearning #deeplearning #neuralnetworks #philanthropy

Is personal data always personal? Our latest blog article "Anonymity is in the eye of the beholder...or is it?", by the HALL PhD researcher Karen Cruyt, discusses the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment “Scania” (C-319/22) and two previous cases of the General Court, which all touch upon the (potentially?) relative notion of personal data. Check it here: https://lnkd.in/eaPpNqVy

❓ Can the same information be qualified as pseudonymous - personal - data for one entity and as anonymous - non-personal - data for another? An important question for anyone working in data protection, and the topic of last month's workshop at Health & Ageing Law Lab (HALL). 💡 Read all about it in our blog post (linked below 👇🏼), and follow our page for future blog posts about all matters related to health data. #dataprotection #anonymization #healthdata #gdpr

🚨 The recent proceedings between the Irish Data Protection Commission and X (formerly Twitter) serve as a crucial reminder for businesses developing AI systems. While the upcoming EU AI Act will introduce new obligations on businesses developing and using AI, companies must be mindful of their existing obligations under Irish and European data protection legislation 🛡️ Businesses should review and update their data protection policies now to avoid legal pitfalls and ensure their AI innovations are built on a solid, compliant foundation. 📜🔍

𝐈𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐔𝐒 𝐟𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐈 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. Considerable civil rights bodies praised the actions, some of which have spent years pushing federal and local law enforcement agencies. According to the new agency rules, federal bodies must also form AI governance boards and submit yearly reports which will be published online. The reports will recapitulate the AI systems in use, identify their risks, and detail plans for tackling them. For more insights on this federal development, refer to the given link below. 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞- 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐞𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞- https://lnkd.in/gNKEnBsD #artificialintelligencelaw #regulationarondtheai #dataprivacy #ailaw #whitehouseannouncement #legislation #newlegislation #aiusage #securityandsafety #federalagencies #aitools #aiexecutiveorder #executiveorder #immigrationdecision #aiandthelaw

As the AI Act enters what could be its final phase of negotiations, the stakes are high. The EU is on the verge of setting a global standard for AI regulation, focusing on safety, fundamental rights, and innovation. However, there are still ongoing debates: • Law enforcement carve-outs and exemptions from certain obligations are still under discussion. • The balance between public safety and individual rights is a key point of contention. #AIEthics #AILaw #EUPolicy #DigitalInnovation

EU AI Act - a tug of war between allowing use by Law Enforcement and fundamental human rights - by Luca Bertuzzi 🦃 1. Law Enforcement and Fundamental Rights: EU countries and MEPs are debating the extent of law enforcement’s use of AI, balancing between operational flexibility and protection of fundamental rights. MEPs are generally advocating for stricter controls. 🦃 2. National Security and Military Exemption: There’s a consensus for a more restrictive approach, excluding AI systems used exclusively for military purposes from the regulation. 🦃 3. Remote Biometric Identification (RBI): The European Parliament may allow limited use of RBI in public spaces, subject to strict conditions like prior judicial authorization and targeted use for serious crimes. 🦃 4. General AI Usage and Governance: Discussions are ongoing on how to regulate General Purpose AI, with a focus on ensuring safety and fundamental rights. 🦃 5. Bans and High-Risk Use Cases: The text suggests an extension of prohibited AI applications, like inferring sensitive information, and broadening the scope of high-risk use cases. 🦃 6. Supervisory and Reporting Requirements: There will be stringent oversight and reporting requirements on the use of AI, especially in public spaces. 🦃 7. Law Enforcement Exemptions: There’s debate over law enforcement exemptions from certain AI regulations, with MEPs generally opposing broad carve-outs.