9 ms·
> Private repository data is scanned by machine and never read by GitHub staff. Human eyes will never see the contents of your private repositories, except as d
by rany_ 3y ago
> Private repository data is scanned by machine and never read by GitHub staff. Human eyes will never see the contents of your private repositories, except as described in our Terms of Service.
>
> Your individual personal or repository data will not be shared with third parties. We may share aggregate data learned from our analysis with our partners.
That's very concerning wording... I guess even private repositories are being fed into AI, at least that's what that policy explicitly allows.
- Shrezzing 3y agoEverything referenced in this webpage refers only to public data, or private data where a user has enabled the dependency graph >data from public repositories, and also... data from private repositories when a repository's owner has chosen to share the data with GitHub by enabling the dependency graph So if you don't enable the Dep Graph feature, your private code is treated according to the standard terms of service.
- rany_ 3y agoSo give them an inch (Dep Graph feature) and they'll take a mile (loss of confidentiality); that's not any better...
- hobofan 3y ago> So give them an inch You are not giving them an inch, you are receiving an inch (and a whole lot more). And if you don't want that, you can turn the feature off. What would you want instead? Them not offering the feature at all?
- rany_ 3y agoI'd like them to limit the scope of the data use to dependency graph ONLY and for it to not be stored. I swear this goes without saying.. but these blanket self granted permissions on the part of GitHub are a serious breach of trust. They don't need this to provide the dependency graph service.
- Shrezzing 3y agoMy understanding of the way dependabot works is that they read your repository's manifest files to provide alerts about vulnerable dependencies. Then after you patch the repository they re-read it to identify the new package version you've moved to, and if there were any build errors introduced from the update. That info is anonymised & fed into an aggregated dataset, creating suggestions for other users like "95% of repositories impacted by this CVE upgraded from v1.0.4 to 1.0.5". Dependabot doesn't read through your code (unless your code is in `.manifest` or `.package` files). That might still be too much for you, everyone's line is at a different place. Dependabot works better the more data it has, so personally I'm fine with that level of detail being returned to an aggregated service, for that very specific purpose. There are other private providers of dependency scanning out there. I'm fairly sure they all work the same way Github does, just with smaller datasets.
- rany_ 3y agoI am not disagreeing with you but by your own admission it does not read your code; only the project's manifest. THEN why on Earth do they ask for so much more when all they need to do is bump some dependency version in the manifest. As for this aggregate stats, why not limit the scope to access to the build status instead? They don't need anything more to provide this service...
- ysavir 3y agoI doubt there's any legal way to say "we'll only read your manifests". Programmers may know what that means (and still debate it, honestly), but I'm skeptical the law has the ability to distinguish between the designated utilities of specific files.
- Shrezzing 3y agoAs far as I can see from all of their documentation, they exclusively open a predefined list of common manifest files. They explicitly mention that they won't be able to do dependabot analysis if your deps are listed in a `setup.py` file for example. You'd need readonly access to the entire repository to actually find those manifest files though, as most of the time they're not going to be in the top-level directory. For companies & people not willing or able to surrender that level of access, it's still possible to use the dependabot API, dissociated from any github repository (for example if you have an Atlassian git repository). You just send it a list of dependencies and an enum indicating its current build status, and they'll reply with a list of suggestions.
- jxf 3y agoThis is a false dichotomy. They can enable the dependency graph feature without repurposing your data for machine learning.
- didntcheck 3y agoAnd they can also repurpose your data for ML, or otherwise illicitly pilfer your data, without you turning a random dependency visualization on. There seems to be an idea here that turning it off will change something, like how there are people adamant that Windows 10 has secret tracking features, yet believe they can defeat them using regedit. I'm afraid this is the technical equivalent of "swiper no swiping!" And to be clear I'm not saying Github or Windows is doing this, I'm just saying either you trust them to keep their word or you don't
- imdsm 3y agoFor anyone wondering: 1. Click your avatar 2. Settings 3. Security / Code security and analysis 4. Dependency graph [Disable all] You're welcome
- mysterydip 3y agoIs it on by default? Couldn't they just silently re-enable it with an "oops that's how site updates go sometimes!" later?
- wokwokwok 3y agoIts not a checkbox, it’s an action. …and “automatically disable for all new private repos” is not set unless you explicitly opt in.
- gorjusborg 3y agoInteresting wording. I would call opting in to disabling a feature 'opt out'. I'm sure github legal prefers your description, though.
- didntcheck 3y agoWell they could silently do anything. No need to toggle the user-visible checkbox It's like giving a party some of your possessions to store, and signing a form saying you don't consent to them snooping through them, then worrying "what if they change and forge the contract later?". They wouldn't need to. Either you trust them to keep their word or you don't trust them with your possessions at all
- everyone 3y agoWhen I click that disable all button there is a modal window with a checkbox that says "Enable by default for new repositories" I'm assuming I want to definitely not check that if I dont want my code stolen? But I dunno, they have worded this all so confusingly, this is some dark pattern shit. Do I check the box or not?
- nmcela 3y agoThis is huge, and unfortunately not surprising at all in the age of massive ever-growing out of control tech monopolies that do whatever the fuck they want. Whatever reads in the TOS now, they can and will just reword it when they need it. There's no trust. Every service and utility gets enshittificated sooner or later, it's a given at the moment. I deleted all my private repos, github and all other MS services should be avoided in the future. The only solution is to self-host. Gitea is good.
- andsoitis 3y ago> The only solution is to self-host. Gitea is good. I don’t understand your thinking and gitea’s marketing. They say in the same breath that it’s “self-hosting” and that they do “Git hosting… similar to GitHub, BitBucket, and GitLab”. — https://docs.gitea.com/ https://docs.gitea.com/
- Macha 3y agoIt's a "run your own github" application. akin to Github Enterprise Server or Gitlab CE/EE, except unlike Github Enterprise Server and Gitlab EE, it's open source.
- loudambiance 3y agoAs far as I am aware, they do not offer a hosting service. I believe that statement was meant to convey that the Gitea software, once installed is a git host similar to the others. I think they were trying to differentiate between a typical remote git repo and all the web components that come with Gitea. They do offer paid support, but that's still for self hosting.
- codetrotter 3y agoYou install Gitea on a server that you own. You use that instance of Gitea to host your git repositories. That is self-hosted git hosting. Gitea is an open source alternative to GitHub, that you run yourself.
- sureglymop 3y agoDo you have experience with self-hosting Guitea? I am on to fence about going with Gitea because of the recent fork of the project (Forgejo). Seems that many contributors are now contributing mainly to Forgejo.
- mhaberl 3y agoIs anyone aware of GitLab's policies regarding the privacy of private repositories? Do they have any "AI feeding" mechanisms in place?
- indigochill 3y agoSeems like one has to assume corporate repos have them. If they don't already, they could decide to at any time. If that's a problem, self-hosting puts the power back into the hands of the users (and can be done very cheaply - I'm paying ~$5/month for a server that's doing a bunch of stuff including very basic personal git hosting)
- blibble 3y ago> Your individual personal or repository data will not be shared with third parties. OpenAI is a third party..?
- rany_ 3y agoGitHub owns the Copilot model; it is based on OpenAI's Codex but they own and operate it themselves. So technically feeding it into their AI would be OK by those terms. That's why Copilot still exists even after Codex was killed off by OpenAI.
- Arnt 3y agoThe policy says human eyes will never see the contents of your private repositories. Suppose, as you say, the repos are one day fed into an AI. How does that policy then constrain the AI later? AIUI the AI can't be used to answer any questions based knowledge from training that included private repositories, since (still AIUI) there's no guarantee that contents from the training won't appear in the output. But there seems to be a loophole for yes/no questions. An AI that answers only yes/no could be trained on private repositories, or run on them. So they could, say, train an AI to recognise repos that require working hours from their legal staff, or from their support staff, and then run that AI on all repos to locate repos that cause expense in the future. Things like that seem possible. And an AI might answer questions like this: "Does any repo contain the string 845fjkef5urwejf in a Kotlin file?"
- JohnFen 3y ago> The policy says human eyes will never see the contents of your private repositories. I love how they say that as if it's a meaningful distinction in some way.
- endymi0n 3y agoPlaying devil‘s advocate, all kinds of linting, vetting or security scanning with any degree of smartness beyond a regex would probably fall into my definition of non-human eyes too. Slippery slope, yes, but in reality there is a legal framework and a ToS in place as well.
- JohnFen 3y ago> in reality there is a legal framework and a ToS in place as well. That doesn't give a lot of comfort. ToS can change at any time.
- skydhash 3y agoThese tools are enabled by the owner of the repository. And I think consent has precedence over license terms. But this seems like an escape hatch for using your code as a training material.
- rany_ 3y agoAlso dependency graph is enabled by default. So there's that.
- sheepscreek 3y agoThis. I believe the title of this post is a click bait, and doesn’t include the context of this verbiage. Use of data for AI training is a big deal. Implicitly allowing it under this definition will be enough cause for a lawsuit.
- Mystery-Machine 3y agoIf it doesn't explicitly say: we do not use private repos data to train our AI models, I wouldn't even consider assuming any other way than that's exactly what they are doing. They know this is a question everyone wants to know the answer to. Why would they leave any ambiguity? Let me help you answer that: because that's exactly what they are doing.
- Sosh101 3y agoRight, that's a very loose definition of private.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thumbuddy 3y agoNow everyone knows why codeberg was invented. This type of thing is entirely foreseeable. Good luck not having all your IP be copy pasteable to anyone using a LLM.
- bhrgunatha 3y agosigh I moved all my projects (from Bitbucket and Github) to Gitlab. Now it appears Gitlab is feeding its data to Google [1]. I do have a codeberg account so will consider moving my repositories again, although it's probably too late and has all been sucked up by Google already. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36445526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36445526
- PeterStuer 3y agoBesides, the "except" part qualifying the "human eyes" is substantial. GitHub is a Californian company they are beholden to US regulation that requires them to hand over data upon legal request, and they can be prohibited from telling you they did. These requests happen frequently.
- simonw 3y agoGitHub publish a transparency report where they reveal how many of these requests they processed. https://github.blog/tag/github-transparency-report/ https://github.blog/tag/github-transparency-report/ > In 2022, GitHub received and processed 432 requests to disclose user information, as compared to 335 in 2021. Of those 432 requests, 274 were subpoenas (with 265 of those subpoenas being criminal or from government agencies and 9 being civil), 97 were court orders, and 22 were search warrants. Concerning national security letters: > We’re very limited in what we can legally disclose about national security letters and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders. We report information about these types of requests in ranges of 250, starting with zero. As shown below, we received 0–249 notices from July to December 2022, affecting 250–499 accounts.
- L3viathan 3y ago> As shown below, we received 0–249 notices from July to December 2022, affecting 250–499 accounts. Seems like we can increase the lower bound ever so slightly: It couldn't have been zero, otherwise it would affect "0-249 accounts".
- hajile 3y agoIf their AI uses my code as the basis to generate similar code, how is that not a derivative work? If I make my own image of Spider-Man or some similar IP, that image is still a derivative and subject to copyright claims. Even if I claimed “I never knew about a character like this before”, I’d still get hit with a massive infringement claim. How is predictive AI any different? If you feed in copyrighted or trade secret material, how are you not responsible for suspect output?
- api 3y agoIt’s like saying you own an image after JPEG compressing it. There are going to be lawsuits, but MS is so big they might just consider settling them part of the cost of making sure they are on the cutting edge of generative AI.
- marcus0x62 3y ago> If their AI uses my code as the basis to generate similar code, how is that not a derivative work? How would you know the LLM used your work specifically and then prove that in court?
- charles_f 3y agoIt's their problem to build lineage in their system. Breach of licence and copyright laws is still illegal even if its very well concealed. Lots of their customers' code is requiring attribution, or specifies acceptable uses (notably, what kind of license the product built with your code is allowed to have). Beyond simple copyright to which anyone can pretend, they're also concealing this.
- marcus0x62 3y ago> It's their problem to build lineage in their system From a practical standpoint, I don’t see how that is true. In order to establish (civil) liability in the United States, someone would have to file suit, survive the inevitable standing challenges, and demonstrate on the preponderance of the evidence that they had been harmed by this conduct. If you can’t prove your code was reproduced by this model, I don’t see how you can successfully do that.
- a-dub 3y agoi think they are referring to automated abuse scanners which have been "made of ai" for decades. i strongly doubt that this language would support the use of private repositories for training generative systems.
- cyanydeez 3y agoCopilot will AI wash your data
- orthoxerox 3y agoWe need GPLv4 that explicitly says that models trained on GPLv4 code and anything they produce are derivative works.
- ralph84 3y agoGitHub/MSFT/OpenAI’s stance is that training AI models is fair use and doesn’t require a license. It doesn’t matter what kind of license you slap on the code. If you don’t think it should be fair use the solution is getting governments to amend copyright law to clarify fair use, not a new software license.
- JohnFen 3y ago> If you don’t think it should be fair use the solution is getting governments to amend copyright law to clarify fair use True, assuming that GitHub/MSFT/OpenAI's stance is correct. Just because they have that stance doesn't mean it is[1]. In the end, these gray areas will be decided in court. [1] I personally think it probably is, which is why I removed all of my stuff from the open web and these sorts of services -- I see no other way to prevent this use of my data.
- jasonlotito 3y agoHow do you think they provide all the services they provide? Secrets scanning, contextual source information, everything. I'm not sure how anyone could have gone this long and been surprised by this. Next people will be surprised that GitHub has the right to show your source code on a website....
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- visarga 3y agoWe’re still in the nascent stages of code models. There’s ample opportunity to transition to private models before the technology reaches maturity. As for the destiny of current private GitHub models, they may contribute to training models (through what’s referred to as “aggregate data”), but the potential backlash could be considerable, particularly when considering the bans on using ChatGPT that various firms have implemented.
- WuxiFingerHold 3y agoIndeed. I wonder how many people don't see this. Or don't want to see this. Nobody should assume that a private Github repo is really private. My employer (one of the largest in the world) has fully migrated to Office 365 and a lot of the new source code is on private Github repositories. But no worries, the humans working at Microsoft will not analyse the data. This is only done by AI.