since C2PA relies on creators to opt in, the protocol doesnât really address the problem of bad actors using AI-generated content. And itâs not yet clear just how helpful the provision of metadata will be when it comes to media fluency of the public. Provenance labels do not necessarily mention whether the content is true or accurate.
Interesting approach, but I canât help but feel the actual utility is fairly limited. For example, I could see it being useful for large corporate creative studios that have contractual / union agreements that govern AI content usage.
If theyâre using enterprise tools that build in C2PA, itâd give them a metadata audit trail showing exactly when and where AI was used.
Thatâs completely useless in the context where AI content flagging is most useful though. As the quote says, this provenance data is applied at the point of creation, and in a world where there are open source branches of generation models, thereâs no way to ensure provenance tagging is built in.
This technology is most needed to combat AI powered misinformation campaigns, when that is the use case this is least able to address.
Data Protection shouldnât be a relevant issue - at least not in the sense that it forcss them to delete accounts. When you process data under the GDPR, you have to identify a lawful basis.
I assume that transactions through the eStore would be handled under the contract basis, with the hosting of the game in the library forming part of the contractual relationship. That would enable them to maintain an account for as long as the contractual relationship persisted.
That basically means GDPR doesnât force them to close an account, they close an account based on their policies because they choose to. Thatâll be based on their T&Cs, so things will fundamentally circle back to whether their T&Cs are legitimate and lawful.
It is possible that a data subject could potentially raise a claim for damages under the GDPR, on the grounds that the deletion of their account is a breach of contract that amounts to an availability data breach.
Well, one context Iâm already familiar with is the counter-terrorism duty in the UK. There is a program called Prevent that is designed to tackle radicalisation risk that could result in terrorism or non-violent extremism.
These programs basically work by placing a duty on certain types of organisation to report concerning behaviours that could result in radicalisation. An example would be a teacher or social worker overhearing a teenager espousing violent ideological positions that theyâd been exposed to online.
This then results in a referral to the local counter-terrorism police unit, who carry out an assessment to determine the level of vulnerability and risk. Far-right ideologies including fascism can be accounted for here. Depending on the outcome, this may result in the referral being closed, or a multi-agency support plan being developed for the individual.
In that narrow band of circumstances, determining someoneâs susceptibility to fascism as an extremist ideology is warranted. Thatâs in the context of a reactive specialist law enforcement assessment, when there is a justifiable national security interest in the prevention of terrorism.
That said, this is very different to indiscriminate profiling on a population level. If everyone in the UK was subject to mandatory fascism assessments, that would be massively intrusive and disproportionate, and an enormous infringement of civil liberties - even if the government attempted to justify it on the same national security basis described above.
Thatâs a hell of a nostalgia trip. Freelancer is probably my all time favourite game, and I had literally a decade of fond memories of Disco before I eventually drifted off.
Whatâs it looking like these days? The pop count and surviving factions were looking a little sad the last time I checked in a year or two ago.