Tech Influence Watch - Website by Molly White tracking the staggering amount of money the crypto and AI industries are pouring into US federal elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_White
The website is open source: https://github.com/molly/tech-influence-watch
https://influence.citationneeded.news/Open linkView original on programming.devCommission designates ChatGPT, Reddit, Roblox under Digital Services Act
Today, the Commission has designated ChatGPT as a Very Large Online Search Engine (VLOSE), as well as Reddit and Roblox as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), under the Digital Services Act (DSA). These services declared that they reach at least 45 million average monthly users in the EU and thus meet the threshold for designation.
Following the notification of the designations, these services have four months, i.e. by January 2027, to comply with the additional DSA obligations for VLOPs and VLOSEs, such as assessing and mitigating the systemic risks stemming from their service and algorithmic systems related to the dissemination of illegal content, the negative effects on minors, users' physical and mental well-being, fundamental rights, electoral processes and public security.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1772Open linkView original on lemmy.ml
Anyone who walks through the city with the glasses would have to inform passers-by in advance orally or even wear safety vests with inscriptions in order to meet the requirements of the European Court
Google Translated from German to English:
GDPR vs. Smart Glasses: Why Ray-Ban Meta Carriers Can Be Held Liable
A new data protection report teaches: Anyone who films uninvolved third parties with smart glasses or allows Metas AI training loses the privilege of the budget exception. reading aloud Print view 53 Read comments Close-up of a black Ray-Ban-Meta-Smart glasses with integrated camera in the eyeglass frame and mirrored lenses on a wooden table. Close-up of a black Ray-Ban-Meta-Smart glasses with integrated camera in the eyeglass frame and mirrored lenses on a wooden table.
(Picture: Tada Images/Shutterstock.com) 13:54 Clock Reading time: 4 min. From Stefan Krempl
The dispute over smart glasses in everyday life continues. After prohibition demands occupied the policy and the Federal Network Agency fit in due to lack of handling, the Hamburg data protection officer Thomas Fuchs has followed up with an investigation by the Ray-Ban Meta AI Glasses. The analysis is clear: For the everyday use of data glasses in public spaces, there is therefore hardly a legally compliant basis, as long as Meta does not improve on construction method and presets.
In the laboratory, the Hamburg data protectionists dismantled the first-generation Meta Wayfarer model and analyzed the traffic. They quickly reached their limits: The 32-gigabyte flash memory had no standardized connections, the data transmission of the app remained encrypted. In the application memory of the smartphone, however, the examiners came across a discovery: In the internal SQLite database, there are table structures with designations such as “face”, “face_group” or “face_low_confidence_pair”.
Although these tables remained empty in the tests and currently no biometric facial recognition takes place, the substructure for automated person matching is already anchored. The authority also refers to security researchers who briefly managed to unlock a facial recognition function. Meta responded with a covert update. The fact that the Group is technically providing for the identification of people in the future by comparison is a bad blow to the inspectors.
Another point of criticism concerns transparency towards third parties. Externally, the data glasses hardly differ from the Wayfarer classic from the 1950s. Passers-by do not realize that they are captured by video camera, five microphone systems and AI assistant. The signal light proves to be largely ineffective: In daylight, the white LED is barely perceptible and sometimes does not signal direct AI interactions at all. When spectacle wearers become data processors
In addition, there is the vulnerability to manipulation. The protective mechanism, which is intended to prevent images when the LED is concealed, can be tricked with foils or caps. Video recordings launched once continue, even when the signal light is subsequently taped off. This means that the glasses miss the European privacy-by-design requirement. According to the report, this allows for secret surveillance that is incompatible with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The classification of data protection law is of serious consequences for the buyers themselves. The budget exception protects private individuals from the GDPR obligations when taking up in a private environment. Anyone who films strangers in public spaces or publishes recordings on social media loses this privilege. The authority clarifies that carriers then become fully responsible data processors. Intractable hurdles in everyday use
The situation becomes even trickier if users do not object to the meta default setting and train the AI model with interaction data. If images and audio signals of third parties are transmitted to the USA for AI training, the data leaves the private purpose. Users thus slip into joint responsibility with the US group pursuant to Article 26 GDPR. Since Meta does not offer an agreement to divide the duties, spectacle wearers move on thin ice.
In order to lawfully process images or conversations of third parties, institutions would either have to obtain informed consent or prove an overriding legitimate interest. Both fail because of everyday realities: effective approval requires prior enlightenment, which is in fact impossible in the face of the inconspicuous glasses. It doesn’t look like a common camera. Video recordings in public spaces can exceptionally be based on legitimate interests. With activated AI functions, however, the rights of the filmed almost always outweigh the rights.
Anyone who walks through the city with the glasses would have to inform passers-by in advance orally or even wear safety vests with inscriptions in order to meet the requirements of the European Court of Justice. Particularly sensitive are medical practices, demonstrations, women's shelters or playgrounds. The use of the Ray-Ban Meta AI Glasses in public space is thus difficult to legally design under data protection law.
Found the real fuck AI personified
Comitium builds AI systems that help policy leaders solve for complexity, engage more effectively, and move faster with confidence.
We're building hubs in Washington, DC and Munich — gateways to U.S. and European technology, enterprise adoption, and policymaking.
What could possibly go wrong?
These are the companies that won’t get any day of light in the media, but are the true corrosion of society.
https://www.comitiumai.com/Open linkView original on lemmy.worldGoogle illegally retains customer data, and I am taking legal action against them
I stand before Google with the following clear technical evidence that cannot be denied, because it is based on unassailable software logic: When I press the delete button on the Google AI Studio interface, the system uses a deceptive label to lie to me that “my prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.” In reality, this button does not delete the prompt, does not delete the chat, and does not destroy any backend object. All it does is move the launcher file belonging to the user interface — a simple JSON file — into the trash folder of my Google Drive.
Google’s diabolical plan was that since the Drive trash automatically empties after 30 days, the JSON file would disappear from my sight forever. At that point, the interface tells me “there is no such prompt,” and because the chat cannot load without the file, Google assumed they were fully protected. They calculated that the user would never again have any technical means to enter the conversation, making it impossible to prove that they never actually deleted anything from their internal servers.
But Google got caught precisely because of their own file‑restore robot, and this is my technical checkmate against them: The built‑in Google Drive file recovery tool is a local, “blind” robot. This robot physically has no access to Google’s remote, internal AI backend servers, and it cannot reconstruct server‑side database records or live session states out of thin air. This robot only operates inside the Drive storage and can only resurrect the discarded JSON file.
When, after emptying the trash, I successfully restored the deleted JSON file with this robot, the AI Studio interface immediately loaded the working chat with its full previous memory and internal state.
Since the Drive robot demonstrably did not touch the backend system, the chat’s instant startup proved in black and white that Google’s backend servers continued running and storing my data uninterrupted even after pressing the delete button and after the trash was emptied. The backend system was never affected by the deletion command.
Google cannot deny this in court. They cannot claim temporary deletion or technical error, because due to the operational limitations of their own robot, their fraud has become an irrefutable fact. They only hid the surface key while illegally stealing and retaining the data. If they had the nerve to cheat, now they must publicly apologize and take responsibility before the court and the cameras.
This is corporate fraud, and they cannot produce an update log for the renaming of the button, and the renaming itself states misleading things that contradict the technical behavior of the deletion. This was a rushed move by Google, demonstrably, intended to hide the illegal data retention.
I had already raised the issue of data retention before the button was renamed — by email, on the forum, in every possible way. I even sent physical letters to Google’s US corporate address, which were demonstrably received, with signed return receipts and confirmation from the Hungarian postal service.
Here are the posts that prove everything:
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/u/bitu79/activity/topics
Google wants you to believe that the prompt HAS BEEN DELETED from the server. When you empty the trash in Drive, the AI Studio interface states that “there is no such prompt”. This text clearly MEANS it was deleted from the server. But in reality, it was NOT deleted from the server, because after the Drive file recovery the prompt loads the exact same way with the same link. The current delete button, which they renamed to cover up their fraud, says: “Move prompt to trash Are you sure? Your prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.”. The prompt goes to the trash, which will be permanently deleted after 30 days. That is what it says, right. But this is a lie, because it is not the prompt that goes to the trash, but the pointer, the json. The prompt is never deleted from the Google servers. Google wanted you to believe that it was deleted from the server, while they DO NOT delete it. Renaming the button only served this purpose. This forum post from 2025 is also evidence against them, where a Google developer also confirmed that the prompt comes back with its own url, and several users described the same thing: https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/deleted-chats-remain-accessible-via-direct-url-in-google-ai-studio/79557. This is the archive of that post on archive ph: https://archive.ph/Kuhcm
Google’s own developer (Lalit_Kumar, 2025) wrote that the chat is actually not the JSON file in Drive, but only metadata. Due to the loss of the metadata, AI Studio “does not recognize” the chat — but this is not a deletion. This proves that the “there is no such prompt” UI text is a lie, because the prompt actually continues to live on Google’s server. This can be found here: https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/saved-prompt-history-extension/101811 And its archive.ph save is here: https://archive.ph/ghAaS
Returning to the button‑renaming issue: this is not a UI error, not a misunderstanding, not a technical glitch. What I have proven is INTENTIONAL. People at Google made deliberate decisions about this. And when something is intentional data deception + intentional data retention, it is no longer civil law — it is CRIMINAL LAW.
Google knew exactly that the “Delete” button is lying. They knew exactly that the button promises: “Your prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.” They knew exactly that this is impossible, because the button does not delete the prompt — it only throws the JSON pointer into the Drive trash.
The JSON is not the chat. The JSON is not the prompt. The JSON is not the session. The JSON is just a damn key without which the UI cannot load the conversation.
Google designed this deliberately so the user would believe the prompt was deleted. They assumed that once the JSON disappears from the Drive trash after 30 days, the interface would say “there is no such prompt,” and everything would be hidden. Meanwhile, the backend continues storing the entire conversation as if nothing happened.
This is the sickest part: it was not a mistake, but intentional concealment, done by people.
Then came their own Drive robot, which can only restore the JSON — and has nothing to do with the Google AI backend. This is also proven. And when I restored the JSON, the chat loaded INSTANTLY, with full memory and full internal state. Here are the videos showing it, on PC and Android:
This proves that the prompt remained on Google’s servers the entire time, even when the interface lied that “there is no such prompt.”
This is criminal‑law territory. Intentional deception. Intentional data retention. Intentional concealment. Intentional harm. Which can even lead to prison sentences.
It does not matter who is big — what matters is that they did not delete the data, and I proved it. It does not matter that Google is huge and I am just a user.
If I go to court, I win. There is no other outcome. Google has lost, because they cheated intentionally. And this is already a CRIMINAL‑LAW category, committed against millions of users.
The Audit Trail of Platform Collusion and Target Campaigns
The hypocrisy is absolute. While these individuals attempt to accuse me of bias, the public record shows they are the ones running a coordinated defamation campaign across multiple platforms.The primary agitator, Mehdi_zardi, spent yesterday sabotaging my thread on Level1Techs, trying to ruin my reputation. Now, this exact same user has infiltrated this official Google AI Developers Forum to continue stirring up trouble and coordinating with local detractors like Faheem_Anis1 (who has opened multiple targeted meta-threads here specifically to demand my ban).This is a synchronized, organized attempt to silence a developer who brought up valid backend data privacy and JSON handling concerns. The permanent archives and cross-platform audit trails do not lie.
@Faheem_Anis1 @Mehdi_zardi
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/bro-needs-to-calm-down-a-bit/177226
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/can-someone-ban-bitu79/176711
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/mIc2Y
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/cG78K
Official Request for Immediate Moderation Action and Permanent Ban
Based on the permanent audit trails provided above, I am officially requesting the Google AI Forum administration to issue an immediate and permanent ban against Faheem_Anis1 and Mehdi_zardi for the following severe violations of the Google Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines:
Malicious Cross-Platform Harassment & Brigading: Mehdi_zardi created accounts on external networks (Level1Techs) to defame my character, then migrated to this forum to coordinate a synchronized attack with local users. Targeted Ban Campaigns & Character Assassination: Faheem_Anis1 explicitly violated forum decorum by creating multiple public meta-threads (e.g., “Can Someone Ban Bitu79?”) solely designed to orchestrate a public witch-hunt, which constitutes severe cyberbullying and harassment. Abuse of the Automated Moderation System (System Weaponization): These users have been caught red-handed in public posts coordinating to mass-report/flag my valid technical data privacy feedback, using false accusations to manipulate the forum’s automated bots. Allowing an organized clique to run cross-platform defamation campaigns and weaponize the flagging system against independent developers completely destroys the integrity of this community.
I demand immediate intervention from the human moderation team to permanently terminate these malicious accounts.
The “Spam” and “Bot” Accusations are Merely a Cover for Technical Incompetence
When Faheem_Anis1, Mehdi_zardi, and their clique cannot refute hard technical data and documented backend flaws, their immediate reflex is to cry “spam” and call me a “bot.” This is a classic deflection tactic and the ultimate white flag used when a group completely runs out of logical counterarguments.
Yesterday, Mehdi_zardi pulled the exact same amateur move on Level1Techs: instead of addressing the verifiable JSON anomalies, he resorted to personal insults and character assassination because his technical competence failed him. Now, they migrated here trying the exact same failed strategy, utterly overwhelmed by the fact that a single developer can systematically dismantle their entire clique.
Let the record show:
Deflection Over Substance: Instead of addressing the verifiable JSON handling anomalies and data retention issues I exposed, they attack the frequency, format, and nature of my posts across both platforms because they completely lack the technical knowledge to challenge my actual findings. Fear of Efficiency: You label me a “bot” or an AI script simply because my documentation is too fast, too precise, and too clean for your amateur standards. You cannot handle the fact that every single one of your toxic, coordinated moves is archived, tracked, and exposed within minutes. A bot didn’t find those backend vulnerabilities — I did. The Ultimate Failure: You are running out of buzzwords to manipulate the moderation team. First you tried “spam,” then you tried “racism,” and now you are down to “bot.” If you have a legitimate, factual counter-proof to my technical claims regarding the backend data handling, post it. Otherwise, your public whining and name-calling only confirm to the entire forum that you are completely helpless against the facts.
https://medium.com/@istokovicsgyorgy79/google-illegally-retains-customer-data-and-i-am-taking-legal-action-against-them-7da0cf95941cOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
Pluralistic: LLMs are real, AI is fake
"AI" – chatbots that wake up, "set their own goals," and "spontaneously" start hacking servers – is fake. It doesn't have "a 10% chance of ending the human race." The Hugging Face hack isn't a mysterious, supernatural occurrence. It's a Python loop and a chatbot. The people responsible didn't accidentally create god: they created autonomous malicious software and then failed to closely monitor it, resulting in it doing something both foreseeable and bad.
Meta Releases Uber-Creepy AI Chatbot as Its Platforms Crumble Under Grotesque Child Abuse
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51862958
I think it might be time to call it: Mark Zuckerberg Pervert AI
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/meta-creepy-ai-chatbot-museOpen linkView original on lemmy.worldSan Francisco gay bars back off Al-assisted face scanning technology after privacy uproar
Badlands and Toad Hall announced over the weekend that use of the controvresial technology would end for now.
https://www.advocate.com/news/gay-bars-ai-face-identificationOpen linkView original on feddit.org