michael veale
@michae.lv
prof @laws.ucl.ac.uk, technology, law, policy, society, whimsical latvian top level domain names. michae.lv and fediverse https://someone.elses.computer/@mikarv 🏳️🌈
thankful for books on how to do this
January 1, 2026 at 12:18 AM
thankful for books on how to do this
original statement in may that freaked out many at the time but didn't get that much media coverage www.state.gov/announcement...
Announcement of a Visa Restriction Policy Targeting Foreign Nationals Who Censor Americans - United States Department of State
Free speech is among the most cherished rights we enjoy as Americans. This right, legally enshrined in our constitution, has set us apart as a beacon of freedom around the world. Even as we take acti...
www.state.gov
December 4, 2025 at 10:00 PM
original statement in may that freaked out many at the time but didn't get that much media coverage www.state.gov/announcement...
Reposted by michael veale
One thing I found odd was the reference early in the judgment to the content being manifestly unlawful. But if it was, the identity checks that the controller has to carry out wouldn’t be necessary. FWIW, it comes from para 17 of the referring court’s request. curia.europa.eu/juris/showPd...
curia.europa.eu
December 3, 2025 at 10:06 AM
One thing I found odd was the reference early in the judgment to the content being manifestly unlawful. But if it was, the identity checks that the controller has to carry out wouldn’t be necessary. FWIW, it comes from para 17 of the referring court’s request. curia.europa.eu/juris/showPd...
I was referring to non GDPR liability created by GDPR related scans g and considering the CJEU’s views on automation in Glawischnig and YT/Cyando (Martin Husovec’s DSA GM chapter great on this). I agree that don’t think it matters for the GDPR liability - and that’s going to create big issues too.
December 3, 2025 at 8:26 AM
I was referring to non GDPR liability created by GDPR related scans g and considering the CJEU’s views on automation in Glawischnig and YT/Cyando (Martin Husovec’s DSA GM chapter great on this). I agree that don’t think it matters for the GDPR liability - and that’s going to create big issues too.
or, when they look at the model marketplaces like Hugging Face that @gorwa.ca and I deal with here www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.... — will they need to scan ML models for sensitive data before letting them be uploaded?
Moderating model marketplaces: platform governance puzzles for AI intermediaries
You have to enable JavaScript in your browser's settings in order to use the eReader.
www.tandfonline.com
December 2, 2025 at 3:28 PM
or, when they look at the model marketplaces like Hugging Face that @gorwa.ca and I deal with here www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.... — will they need to scan ML models for sensitive data before letting them be uploaded?
It was surprising how GC didn't even get a mention
December 2, 2025 at 3:14 PM
It was surprising how GC didn't even get a mention
CJEU is aware, but states that the 'shall not apply' in the ECD (note, this is now 'without prejudice' in DSA) excludes it. Doesn't address what the consequences of DP-obliged monitoring (and any resulting awareness of illegality by humans) are for liability though.
December 2, 2025 at 3:04 PM
CJEU is aware, but states that the 'shall not apply' in the ECD (note, this is now 'without prejudice' in DSA) excludes it. Doesn't address what the consequences of DP-obliged monitoring (and any resulting awareness of illegality by humans) are for liability though.
CURIA - Documents
curia.europa.eu
December 2, 2025 at 3:00 PM
But monitoring is monitoring. High-performing, solely algorithmic monitoring already seems to be out of the GM prohibition. But this might require human checks. Do humans assisting you doing these pre-emptive checks not become aware of illegality just because the checks were *motivated* by the GDPR?
December 2, 2025 at 3:00 PM
But monitoring is monitoring. High-performing, solely algorithmic monitoring already seems to be out of the GM prohibition. But this might require human checks. Do humans assisting you doing these pre-emptive checks not become aware of illegality just because the checks were *motivated* by the GDPR?