Awesome! What about the new AI Act in Europe (Aug 2) that says all AI content should be disclosed? Can you tell me more about that as I don't understand the legal details.
A solid question. In some sense, from what I’ve seen of Pangram, they are already doing the disclosure. The output is a Pangram-generated report which is triggered when you click on ‘scan for AI’. They could, I suppose, be a bit more explicit that the output is also AI-generated though, but I’m not sure it’s something a regulator is going to care about.
short legal disclaimer leaving the door open to do it. The moment they wrote the mail they don't currently do it. And also probably because Pangram has a big loophole in its conditions too. Substack currently for real right now at the moment doesn't do it 😂😂 ... Clearly they don't ... Not them...
One question that’s come to mind now…if the legal basis for this processing is legitimate interest, and if one data subject successfully objects to that legitimate interest, does that not mean that the legitimate interest across the board for other users is tainted to the point that it shouldn’t be used or is no longer an appropriate legal basis for the processing?
They responded in the same way. I'm going to file an additional complaint to the CLIN because I don't want the default setting on my account which Substack refuses to remove. It's even worse than having the stupid non-consensual surveillance.
Awesome! What about the new AI Act in Europe (Aug 2) that says all AI content should be disclosed? Can you tell me more about that as I don't understand the legal details.
A solid question. In some sense, from what I’ve seen of Pangram, they are already doing the disclosure. The output is a Pangram-generated report which is triggered when you click on ‘scan for AI’. They could, I suppose, be a bit more explicit that the output is also AI-generated though, but I’m not sure it’s something a regulator is going to care about.
So I'm guessing if we live in EU, we shouldn't turn off the scan for our content as it's against the Act? Or is the statement enough?
I don't follow. Users have no obligation to provide notice. This is something that's required on the deployer/provider side of the house.
Thank you!
Writing my own request later today. Thanks for sharing!
My heroes!
Well done, I would be wary of the wording used twice where it says, Substack does not "currently" use xxxx to....
3x! But yes, that's the pattern I immediately noticed. Maybe a legal hedge, but a very thorny hedge indeed.
short legal disclaimer leaving the door open to do it. The moment they wrote the mail they don't currently do it. And also probably because Pangram has a big loophole in its conditions too. Substack currently for real right now at the moment doesn't do it 😂😂 ... Clearly they don't ... Not them...
One question that’s come to mind now…if the legal basis for this processing is legitimate interest, and if one data subject successfully objects to that legitimate interest, does that not mean that the legitimate interest across the board for other users is tainted to the point that it shouldn’t be used or is no longer an appropriate legal basis for the processing?
That is a good question, and one I do not know! Might be worth it for me to poke the AP on this … or the Irish DPC…
Yes! I also got the same response!
I sent mine today and got a response back today too - wow! 😱 Been disabled. Also says in email its not used for training generative ai.
Substack did not do any impact assessment whatsoever.
This is probably true, sadly.
I just sent my objection, I live in France. I'm hoping for the same outcome.
Thank you for the template!
Happy to help!
They responded in the same way. I'm going to file an additional complaint to the CLIN because I don't want the default setting on my account which Substack refuses to remove. It's even worse than having the stupid non-consensual surveillance.