![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/2QNz7bkA1V.png)
Legally obfuscation can be anonymization depending on how it’s done
Depending on the data structures there are many methods to anonymize without supervision. None of them are perfect but the don’t have to be - just legally defensible.
Legally obfuscation can be anonymization depending on how it’s done
Depending on the data structures there are many methods to anonymize without supervision. None of them are perfect but the don’t have to be - just legally defensible.
That is very much what the EU AI act is trying to get at. LLMs are covered under GPDR and EU AI act, it is not a simple matter
Assuming it is PII when you store it. This is a complicated discussion that will absolutely come down to what Slack can defend to a regulator
That’s not true at all. If you obfuscate the PII it stops being PII. This is an extremely common trick companies use to circumvent these laws.
That’s not strictly speaking true. It requires more oversight and mechanisms of control but those very well could already be in place.
Yeah I don’t trust the good will of corporations, even the ones I personally like
Yeah GOG is a better ownership model. Steam is not ownership
I mean I hate to say it but if steam closed up shop tomorrow your games are gone too. You buy a license, not a copy, from steam
And clip it to the belt loop of your khaki cargo shorts like the rest of us weekend warrior dads 😂
And yet the PR they got from it will last
To cash out
Yes and there are definitely people who use excel for art. Just like there are people who use GitHub for its releases page. It’s just not the primary use of either program.
A huge chunk of GitHub users? Citation needed. Sounds like what you mean is you and your communities use it that way.
I mean I did try. They didn’t really listen, just repeated the same thing over and over again.
No, what you mean is YOU use it and you’re assuming most people use GitHub the way you do. GitHub is first and foremost a platform for GIT. Git has nothing to do with releases or file downloads per se. Time spent improving the releases UI is time not spent doing other UI improvements. If you need more proof that it’s not worth it to spend time on the release UI, just take note of the fact that GitHub is not spending time on the release UI. If everyone was using it and it was deficient, do you really think that would be the case?
Literally everyone? I’ve been a software engineer for ten years. My company doesn’t use it, and no company I’ve worked for has. I guess they are not part of “literally everyone?”
Explain to me how GitHub working on one product feature (releases) has no impact on how much they can work on others. Apparently in your rich enterprise software career you’ve found that resources and time are limitless? Or maybe you think it’s trivial for a platform like GitHub to change their UI.
This smacks of lots junior software engineers I’ve worked with who think problems are simple and solutions are easy because they’ve never actually DONE anything. I get that you’re very convinced that this is easy and cost less but it’s pretty clear to me you have no idea what you’re talking about.
We’re talking about how to design one of the biggest platforms on the internet. Of course there is a compromise. No one is advocating for removing the button, but arguing that the UI is somehow deficient for people wanting to download binaries is really missing the purpose of GitHub.
There isn’t necessarily a problem but it is definitely circumventing at least the spirit if not the letter of the law by not allowing data subjects to provide fully informed consent.