Ethical Hacking News
Meta's decision to train its AI models on user data has sparked controversy among European users, with only 7% supporting the practice. The company must provide clear information about these activities and give users a simple route to opt out of processing, as required by EU regulations.
Only 7% of Facebook and Instagram users in Europe believe that Meta should train its AI models on their data. 27% of respondents were unaware that Meta was using their data for AI training purposes, raising concerns about transparency. Noyb argues that Meta's use of user data for AI training is a clear violation of the GDPR and UK GDPR. Meta needs to provide clear information about its AI training practices and give users a simple route to opt out of processing. Critics argue that Meta's true motives are to gain a competitive advantage in AI, while others raise concerns about bias and fairness.
Meta, the social media giant, has long been under scrutiny for its data collection and processing practices. The company's enthusiasm for training artificial intelligence (AI) models on user data has sparked controversy among European users. According to a recent study commissioned by Max Schrems' privacy advocacy group Noyb, only 7% of Facebook and Instagram users in Europe believe that Meta should train its AI models on their data.
The study, which polled 1,000 Facebook and Instagram users in Germany, found that 27% of respondents were unaware that Meta was using their data for AI training purposes. This lack of transparency has raised concerns among privacy advocates and regulators alike. Noyb argues that Meta's use of user data for AI training is a clear violation of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its British equivalent, which still exists as the UK GDPR post-Brexit.
In May, Meta announced plans to resume training its AI models on EU users' public posts and comments. However, this move was met with skepticism by Noyb and other critics, who point out that Meta's legitimate interests justification for processing user data is based on a flawed assumption that users will not object to their data being used for AI training purposes.
To comply with the GDPR, Meta needs a legal basis for processing user data for AI training purposes. The company's only option is to claim legitimate interests, which Noyb argues is a vague and unreliable justification for processing sensitive personal data. In reality, it appears that many users are not even aware of how their data is being used, let alone provide informed consent.
The controversy over Meta's AI training practices has sparked debate among regulators and lawmakers. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) recently approved Meta's use of the legitimate interests basis for processing EU users' data for AI training purposes. However, other regulators have expressed concerns about the validity of this justification.
In the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has stated that organizations relying on the legitimate interests lawful basis to process user data must provide clear information about these activities and give users a simple route to opt out of processing. This requirement is designed to ensure that users are aware of how their data is being used and can make informed decisions about its use.
The controversy over Meta's AI training practices has also led to speculation about the company's true motives for collecting and using user data. Some critics argue that Meta is simply trying to gain a competitive advantage in the rapidly evolving field of AI, while others point out that the company's use of AI models raises significant concerns about bias and fairness.
In recent years, Meta has invested heavily in its AI research and development efforts, including the creation of a new language model called Llama. The company claims that its AI capabilities will enable it to provide more personalized and relevant content to users, as well as improve its overall user experience.
However, Noyb and other critics argue that this emphasis on AI is a red herring, designed to distract from the company's fundamental problem with data protection and privacy. According to Schrems, Meta's approach to AI training raises significant concerns about bias, fairness, and transparency.
"The company probably knows that no one wants to provide their data just so that Meta gets a competitive advantage over other companies," Schrems said in an interview with The Register. "Instead of asking for consent and getting 'no' as an answer, they decided that their right to profits overrides the privacy rights of at least 274 million EU users."
Noyb is contemplating a potential class action against Meta, which could cost the company billions of euros if successful. Meanwhile, German data protection officials are predicting that Meta's AI practices will end up being adjudicated at the EU's highest court.
In conclusion, the controversy over Meta's AI training practices highlights the ongoing struggle for balance between technological innovation and fundamental rights such as privacy and data protection. As the use of AI models becomes increasingly prevalent in industries such as social media and advertising, it is essential that regulators, lawmakers, and companies prioritize transparency, fairness, and accountability.
Meta's decision to train its AI models on user data has sparked controversy among European users, with only 7% supporting the practice. The company must provide clear information about these activities and give users a simple route to opt out of processing, as required by EU regulations.
Related Information:
https://www.ethicalhackingnews.com/articles/Metas-AI-Training-Practices-Under-Scrutiny-A-European-Perspective-ehn.shtml
https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2025/08/07/meta_training_ai_on_social/
Published: Thu Aug 7 10:49:37 2025 by llama3.2 3B Q4_K_M
