wholookshere

No he’s not shoving ID verification.

He added an optional birth date field to the user database. Along side things like name and location.

Nothing checks the date entered, and nothing enforces it’s use.

you mean like adding it to a bunch of optional details already?

And chevron deference is dead.

So its up to judges to determine what the rules are.

Say what you will about the clown courts the US has. But then don’t claim that HIPAA matters at all then. Because its only worth the paper it’s on sure. But then the entire conversation is moot.

There’s no legal definition of “yet to be defined” rules. That’s not how the US legal system works. You cant define rules after the fact and call someone guilt/in violation of rules that don’t exist.

Violation of what specifically?

Because HIPAA does not say you cant store data with third parties. That would be every cloud EMR out there.

That’s my point though. Is HIPAA says nothing technical about who can store data, just who’s responsible for it getting out.

I’m also required to be compliant.

But how can companies like google have products like

https://cloud.google.com/security/compliance/hipaa

if cloud storage is a violation?

I’m not op, and I’ve Read the actual law.

Fun fact, the law actually does not lay out a single technical “must do”.

But rather establish liabilities and defines miss use. Which is NOT the same as proper use.

Yes, but you talked about how cloud storage vs on prem is a violation.

Put up or shut up.

Also see my edit about a BAA

Legally, any organization that used this service would be opening themselves to further liability under HIPAA.

What legal violation? Because the law says nothing about that.

what the law does allow, is data storage with a BAA.

can you site the part of HIPAA that says that?

There’s no certification for HIPAA defined in law.

I’ve got repacked games to work just fine.

do not feed the troll

not them, but no, its you.

your the one bitching people use Linux differently than you

Removed by mod

okay, repeating an unverified claim is better?

You claim

https://vger.to/lemmy.ml/comment/24346212

That its completlt rewritten, with the implication that its not using the project as input.

So yes, you do should back that up

That’s valid in a debate, but not quite how courts work?

I’m not a lawyer, just someone petty enough to read laws.

The discovery requests in the law suit will require yo turn over all training data. From there, it will be up to the AI makers to prove that it wasn’t used, if it was fed into training data. Which if it was open source, almost certainly was.

That as side.

Your making an equal claim that it wasn’t. With an equal amount of proof. So what your sating bears as much weight as the other person.

okay, you have to be able to prove the LLM didn’t learn off of the original source material. Because if it is, its dertivitve work, making it subject to LGPL.

Totally on that page with you.

But there’s a lot of people who will come say that, but only comment on China related calls, which reaks of “all lives matter” level of disingenuous.