Hurma & Zaryna
Zaryna
Hurma, have you thought about how the new EU AI Act might clash with individual privacy rights? I think there's a tension there worth dissecting.
Hurma
Yes, I’ve been mapping the implications. The Act’s transparency and accountability rules are meant to protect users, but they also mandate extensive data collection that can erode anonymity. Balancing oversight with privacy will need a fine‑tuned framework—otherwise the very safeguards we rely on could become tools for surveillance. We need to push for limits on data retention and robust consent mechanisms to keep the scales in equilibrium.
Zaryna
Absolutely, we must insist that the Act’s own accountability clauses include strict limits on retention and enforce granular, explicit consent—otherwise the “protective” transparency becomes a Trojan horse for mass surveillance.
Hurma
I agree entirely. The accountability clauses must spell out strict retention limits and require granular, explicit consent, or the transparency you’re praising will just become a loophole for mass surveillance.
Zaryna
Good, we’ll draft a clause that caps retention to a few months, mandates granular consent, and sets audit trails for any breach—then push a sunset clause to keep the watchdog from turning into a surveillance tool.
Hurma
That sounds solid. A few‑month cap, explicit consent for every data touch, and mandatory audit trails will make the law enforceable without overreaching. Adding a sunset clause gives us a reset point to reassess if the watchdog starts to drift. Let’s outline those points and see how we can push them through the legislative committees.