Today I filed a complaint with the Data Protection Commission Ireland as an open letter against Alphabets plans to introduce their Bard AI into Android Messages app and to intercept 100s of billions of confidential communications for the purpose of training their AI. This is a direct breach of Article 5(1) of 2002/58/EC and in many member States constitutes a breach of criminal law for the interception of communications content. Under Article 5(1) the consent of *all parties* involved in a communication is required before it can be intercepted. This means that Alphabet cannot simply rely on the consent of the user of the App and they know this because they were caught breaking the same law in 2010 with their Streetview cars when they intercepted the WiFi communications of EU persons. You can find the letter below. #privacy #surveillance #confidentiality #confidentialcommunications #ai #bard #messaging #eprivacy #law #legal #ethics #ethicalai #interception #wiretap #spying cc Peter Hense 🇺🇦🇮🇱
Brendan Quinn
3mo
Has the DPC acted on your other complaint you filed a few weeks ago?
Daniel Sereduick
3mo
*deleted because I was wrong*
Juan Sierra Pons
3mo
It is quite interesting for me as an IT engineer this concept of "open letter"/"filing a complaint". Does it really work? Isn't the other part biased against you due the openness nature of the letter. Is it?
Product Owner for Compliant Kubernetes @ Elastisys | Kubernetes, GDPR, NIS2
3moPurely theoretically: What if the feature was "offline-first"? Wouldn't that mean that the feature wouldn't trigger the application of Art. 5(1) ePD? (Of course, this is Google, so I doubt the feature is meant to be offline-first. Surely they have other interests in the gathered data. I was just proactively fighting against a common misconception that regulation stifles innovation.)