since C2PA relies on creators to opt in, the protocol doesn’t really address the problem of bad actors using AI-generated content. And it’s 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 can’t 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 they’re using enterprise tools that build in C2PA, it’d give them a metadata audit trail showing exactly when and where AI was used.

That’s 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, there’s 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.

When the ICO recieve a complaint they usually send an initial notification email to the data controller to advise that a case officer will be assigned in due course.

Well, unless it relates to a serious or ongoing data breach, which tends to be triaged immediately into an active investigation.

Initial notification letters do usually recommend trying to resolve the issue with the data subject in the interim though.

That probably spooked Reddit into moving your case up the priority list as I imagine they’ve got a pretty substantial backlog of SAR, erasure and objection requests, considering the circumstances.

The response window for most of those rights is 30 calendar days + extensions if applicable, so they could also have just been responding as late as allowed, accounting for aforementioned probable backlog.

Do let us know when the ICO gets back to you though, will be fascinating to hear what they have to say.

UK district and borough councils have a homelessness prevention duty which also applies to refugees. Unfortunately said councils are also largely falling to pieces and social housing stock hasn’t met demand since Thatcher eviscerated it in the 80s.

This basically means that a bunch of them are going to end up living long-term in ‘emergency’ B&B placements due to a lack of available social housing, unless they can find private arrangements themselves.

So… was this intended as suicide by border guard? I imagine whatever his original plan is he’s going to end up regretting it.

1. It’ll be funny if Georgia also gets off the pot and indictes too.

2. Could this go in US News instead? Lemmy is broadly very US-centric already, so posting US politics here too drowns out other global stories.

I’m convinced that Musk is involved in some kind of Brewster’s Millions situation with Twitter.

I also feel sorry for the CEO (well, not really) as they’re clearly being set up as a scapegoat for the inevitable failure that Musk’s erratic and short-sighted behaviour will cause.

Why would blockchain be necessary to do that? Honestly, 99% of the time blockchain is just a highly inefficient buzzword.

Usually there are better ways to achieve the same outcome, with the added bonus of not automatically attracting a cavalcade of Web3 con-artists and grifters.