They certainly make the EU regulators sound unfriendly (and counterproductive on privacy). Can someone with DMA legal knowledge translate and separate the spin?
> Siri AI is private by design and deeply integrated across Apple’s platforms using on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute, which extends the privacy and security of iPhone into the cloud. However, under EU regulators’ extreme interpretation of the DMA, Apple would have to give any virtual assistant direct access to users’ private data — and the ability to directly control other installed applications — as soon as Siri AI is made available in the EU, without the essential protections necessary to keep users and their data safe.
> According to EU regulators, the DMA requires Apple to give any AI system nearly unlimited access to a user’s device, as well as the ability to act on that access autonomously without a user’s ongoing visibility and control. That includes the ability to read and send messages, make purchases, access files, and execute actions across any app. Security researchers have already shown that AI systems can be hijacked to steal personal data — like passwords and photos — and to permanently alter files and account settings without a user’s consent. As AI systems gain more capabilities, these risks are quickly increasing in frequency and scope.
> Can someone with DMA legal knowledge translate and separate the spin?
Apple wants the DMA to be repealed because it endangers their App Store revenue and somehow still thinks they'll be able to co-opt their EU customers as a bargaining chip at this point in time.
> Can someone with DMA legal knowledge translate and separate the spin?
The EU wants third-party providers to have access to the same features and UX that Siri has. When Apple says "the DMA requires Apple to give any AI system nearly unlimited access [...] That includes the ability to read and send messages, make purchases, access files, and execute actions across any app." they conveniently leave out that Apple's own AI has those abilities, which is what the DMA regulates against.
Right, and to be specific, what they also leave out is that the DMA only mandates that third-party providers can request access, the user can be in full control without breaching the rules set by the DMA.
> According to EU regulators, the DMA requires Apple to give any AI system nearly unlimited access
> Given the serious risks to users, Apple designed a solution called Trusted System Agent — an intermediary that would allow virtual assistants to safely access the same features and capabilities as Siri AI for devices in the EU
What a missed opportunity to call this thing an IOMMeU.
Their only remaining option after repeatedly being ignored by EU consumers, other than of course growing up and complying with regional market regulations.
> Siri AI is private by design and deeply integrated across Apple’s platforms using on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute, which extends the privacy and security of iPhone into the cloud. However, under EU regulators’ extreme interpretation of the DMA, Apple would have to give any virtual assistant direct access to users’ private data — and the ability to directly control other installed applications — as soon as Siri AI is made available in the EU, without the essential protections necessary to keep users and their data safe.
> According to EU regulators, the DMA requires Apple to give any AI system nearly unlimited access to a user’s device, as well as the ability to act on that access autonomously without a user’s ongoing visibility and control. That includes the ability to read and send messages, make purchases, access files, and execute actions across any app. Security researchers have already shown that AI systems can be hijacked to steal personal data — like passwords and photos — and to permanently alter files and account settings without a user’s consent. As AI systems gain more capabilities, these risks are quickly increasing in frequency and scope.