Amazon, Google, Meta want laxer privacy and AI rules. No thanks.

In the news that no one is surprising, technology giants call the Australian government against confidentiality law reform and the AI regulations that will enter their paths. What if we stop framing privacy as an economic bargaining chip?

Lately queryThe Productivity Commission sought input to ıl unlocking the benefits of new technology and artificial intelligence. Meta used the opportunity to discuss Against the amendments of the Privacy Law This will prevent the company from using personal information received from Facebook and Instagram broadcasts to train the company’s AI. Probably Meta does not want Australia to follow the EU, ordered the company to stop To teach models using user data.

Google called for a “regulatory environment ve for artificial intelligence, and warned the adaptation costs that came with the privacy regulation, argued that it could create a“ compatibility trench çıkan to drown smaller assets – a ridiculous argument from Google. Amazon argued that privacy arrangements should not take over the ability to advertise targeted.

Such a stance is out of crazy step with community expectations both on privacy and artificial intelligence. More than four of five Australians I want the government to do more To protect their privacy. A study While Australians were less optimistic about AI than all other countries, 78% of them were concerned about negative results, while another found 83% I think companies should search for consent Before using personal information to train AI models.

It is clear that the Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind did not buy Meta’s sold. In response to the proposal of the company’s position to “respect innovation and economic interests” Polite imported The role is to act in the public interest, not in the economic interests of technology companies ”.

Unfortunately, this does not reflect Australia’s long -standing approach to privacy as an economic bargaining chip. The country’s attempt to reform in a grieving way Privacy Law Came from a desire To improve competition targets. So after the ACCCs Digital Platforms Inquiry– It is a fundamental pioneer that frames the privacy law because it encourages competition and innovation.

Many advocates of privacy are forced to surrender to economic cost-price analysis of potential confidentiality guards. Such a process does not say anything of the inner value of confidentiality as a human right. In addition, data does not take the individual and collective damage and power imbalance caused by extractive business models. Instead, if only the line of its value in a profit graph rises mercilessly, it fills privacy in its market terms. When we discuss these terms, we lose.

Economic factors are not irrelevant, but this equation fails us. If the path leading to brutal growth is based on unfaithful data accumulation and commodification, people’s right to confidentiality becomes collateral damage. Significant Privacy Law compulsory Throw a key in favor of the public interest in the business models of these companies. Otherwise, what is its meaning?

Other giants, such as Bunnings and Woolworths, had problems with the destructive privacy guards. Woolworths said that the confidentiality reform can yarat create unnecessary challenges about how we serve our customers ”. Given that there is a bed for supermarkets, this is not surprising surveillance and control. Meanwhile, Bunnings called for arrangements to enable him to use face recognition technology that repeats his dispute with the Privacy Commissioner. Using face recognition violated the privacy of Australians stores.

In particular, both Woolworths and Bunings have already under fire to drive a privacy-invasive vehicle claiming to have predicted before the crime took place.

Then there is a Privacy Theater. Many of these companies – in their presentations and generally – are in pain to express how much they attach great importance to confidentiality. But just like what they said against, What they support is explanatory. They do not easily participate in the confidentiality reform that will significantly reduce their power or profits.

An example is the full common option of the notification holder model. He thinks that people can make conscious choices about their data with enough information. This is useless: even if people do not read and do their privacy policies, there is no real bargaining power. Employment in companies dark patterns Manipulate users. This paradigm led to both annoying and endless conditions, conditions and cookies posters. Do very little to improve data applications.

So when the likes of Meta and Amazon reiterate transparency commitment to strengthen its users – separate us.

Attorney General Michelle Rowland in response to Meta insertedTo say that the Labor Party will not be dictated by multinational technology companies ”. In the last five years, if the government had acted seriously on strong privacy reform proposals that would really confuse the feathers of the big technology, it would have gained more weight.

Instead, he caught the low -hanging fruit and kicked significant changes with the promise of “Tranche Two” reforms. It seems that it is politically popular to address the major technology, but if the government really wants the Australians to believe that they are taking our privacy seriously, it will have to prove it.