4 ms·

> Starting on March 1, 2023, we are making two changes to our data usage and retention policies: > OpenAI will not use data submitted by customers via our API

by kiratp 3y ago

> Starting on March 1, 2023, we are making two changes to our data usage and retention policies: > OpenAI will not use data submitted by customers via our API to train or improve our models, unless you explicitly decide to share your data with us for this purpose. You can opt-in to share data. > Any data sent through the API will be retained for abuse and misuse monitoring purposes for a maximum of 30 days, after which it will be deleted (unless otherwise required by law). https://openai.com/policies/api-data-usage-policies https://openai.com/policies/api-data-usage-policies

actionfromafar 3y ago
Unless required by law… I wonder what law.
- laserbeam 3y ago
  "Unless required by law" is wording required to enable a mechanism called "legal hold". If an authority or lawyer discovers some documents for a case they get to prevent their automatic deletion until that case gets closed. Basically, you don't want to lose evidence if there's a warrant or ongoing lawsuit. I really see no problem with that clause in most ToS documents. Now, I think you can do shady stuff with that wording as well, but I guess you can also get sued if you kept or used an unreasonable percentage of your data longer than when you promised to delete it.
  - mattlutze 3y ago
    > Basically, you don't want to lose evidence if there's a warrant or ongoing lawsuit. I really see no problem with that clause in most ToS documents. Perhaps more nit-pickinlgy specific, they may be compelled by law (the courts or an agency with enforcement capacity) to maintain evidence if there's a warrant or ongoing lawsuit.
  - e12e 3y ago
    > is wording required to enable a mechanism called "legal hold" I don't think this is accurate. At least in Norway you can't "just not" keep records required by law - any section in a contract in conflict with current law would simply be invalid? I think the section just clarifies that Microsoft will comply with laws requiring them to keep data (eg the "anti-terror" laws that might require data retention).
- e12e 3y ago
  > Unless required by law… I wonder what law. Any law. It just makes explicit that a contract can't supercede laws. Even if it was left out, Microsoft is still subject to laws.

by kiratp 3y ago

actionfromafar 3y ago

Unless required by law… I wonder what law.

laserbeam 3y ago
"Unless required by law" is wording required to enable a mechanism called "legal hold". If an authority or lawyer discovers some documents for a case they get to prevent their automatic deletion until that case gets closed. Basically, you don't want to lose evidence if there's a warrant or ongoing lawsuit. I really see no problem with that clause in most ToS documents. Now, I think you can do shady stuff with that wording as well, but I guess you can also get sued if you kept or used an unreasonable percentage of your data longer than when you promised to delete it.
- mattlutze 3y ago
  > Basically, you don't want to lose evidence if there's a warrant or ongoing lawsuit. I really see no problem with that clause in most ToS documents. Perhaps more nit-pickinlgy specific, they may be compelled by law (the courts or an agency with enforcement capacity) to maintain evidence if there's a warrant or ongoing lawsuit.
- e12e 3y ago
  > is wording required to enable a mechanism called "legal hold" I don't think this is accurate. At least in Norway you can't "just not" keep records required by law - any section in a contract in conflict with current law would simply be invalid? I think the section just clarifies that Microsoft will comply with laws requiring them to keep data (eg the "anti-terror" laws that might require data retention).
e12e 3y ago
> Unless required by law… I wonder what law. Any law. It just makes explicit that a contract can't supercede laws. Even if it was left out, Microsoft is still subject to laws.