5 ms·
Sure, preservation orders are routine - but this would be like ordering phone companies to record ALL calls just in case some might become evidence later. There
by jacob019 1y ago
Sure, preservation orders are routine - but this would be like ordering phone companies to record ALL calls just in case some might become evidence later. There's a huge difference between preserving specific communications in a targeted case and mass surveillance of every private conversation. The government shouldn't have that kind of blanket power over private communications.
- charonn0 1y ago> but this would be like ordering phone companies to record ALL calls just in case some might become evidence later That's not a good analogy. They're ordered to preserve records they would otherwise delete, not create records they wouldn't otherwise have.
- jacob019 1y agoThey are requiring OpenAI to log API calls that would otherwise not be logged. I trust when OpenAI says they will not log or train on my sensitive business API calls. I trust them less to guard and protect logs of those API calls.
- jjk166 1y agoChange calls to text messages. The important thing is the keeping records of things unrelated to an open case which affect millions of people's privacy.
- Spivak 1y agoI mean to be fair it is related to a current open case but the order is pretty ridiculous on its surface. It's feels different when the company and the employees thereof have to retain their own comms and documents, and that company must do the same for 3rd parties who are related but not actually involved in the lawsuit is a bit of a stretch. Why the NYT cares about a random ChatGPT user bypassing their paywall when an archive.ph link is posted on every thread is beyond me.
- __turbobrew__ 1y ago> I mean to be fair
- protocolture 1y agoNo its pretty good. To refine it further, its why you put a single user under scrutiny on litigation hold rather than the whole exchange server.
- nradov 1y agoNo, it wouldn't be like that at all. Phone companies and telephone calls are covered under a different legal regime so your analogy is invalid.