5 ms·

The NYT is, in my view, exploiting a systematic weakness of the US legal system here, i.e. extremely wide reaching discovery laws with almost no regard for the

by lxgr 1y ago

The NYT is, in my view, exploiting a systematic weakness of the US legal system here, i.e. extremely wide reaching discovery laws with almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute, or aspects of their lives not relevant to the dispute at hand. Of course it's out of self-serving interests, but I find it hard to disagree with OpenAI on this one.

Arainach 1y ago
What right to privacy? There is no right to have your interactions with a company (1) remain private, nor should there be. Even if there was you agree to let OpenAI do essentially whatever they want with your data - including hand it over to the courts in response to a subpoena. (1) With limited well scoped exclusions for lawyers, medical records, erc.
- lxgr 1y ago
  That may be your or your jurisdiction's view, but such privacy rights definitely exist in many countries. You might have heard of the GDPR, but even before that, several countries had "privacy by default" laws on the books.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  But if both the parties agree, then there should be The freedom to stay private. Your comment is dystopian given how the interaction is basically like how some people treat ai as their "friend" imagine no matter what encrypted messaging app or smth they use, the govt still snoops
  - fastball 1y ago
    Dealer-Client privilege.
- bionhoward 1y ago
  It’s also a matter of competition…there are other AI services available today with various privacy policies ranging from no training by default, ability to opt out of training, ability to turn off data retention, or e2e encryption. A lot of workloads (cough, working on private git repos) logically require private AI to make sense
- ChadNauseam 1y ago
  Given how many important interactions people have with companies in our modern age, saying "There is no right to have your interactions with a company remain private" is essentially equivalent to saying "there is no right to privacy at all". When I talk to my friends over facetime or imessage, that interaction is being mediated by Apple, as well as by my internet service provider and (I assume) many other parties.
  - whilenot-dev 1y ago
    Privacy in that example would be if no party except you and your friends can access the contents of this interaction. I wouldn't want neither Apple nor my ISP to have that access. A company like OpenAI that offers a SaaS is no such friend, and in such power dynamics (individual VS company) it's probably in your best interest to have everything public if necessary.
    - lxgr 1y ago
      You're always free to keep records of your ChatGPT conversations on your end. Why tangle the data of people with very different preferences than yours up in that?
  - wvenable 1y ago
    > "There is no right to have your interactions with a company remain private" is essentially equivalent to saying "there is no right to privacy at all". Legally that is a correct statement. If you want that changed, it will require legislation.
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      Really not so simple. Roe v Wade was decided based on the implied right to privacy. Sure its been overturned but if liberals get back on the court it will be un-overturned
      - nativeit 1y ago
        That’s presumably why legislation is needed?
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  > There is no right to have your interactions with a company (1) remain private, nor should there be. Why should two entities not be able to have a confidential interaction if that is what they both want? Certainly a court order could supersede such a right just as it could most others provided sufficient evidence. However I would expect such things to be both highly justified and narrowly targeted. This specific case isn't so much about a right to privacy as it is a more general freedom to enter into contracts with others and expect those to be honored.
  - nativeit 1y ago
    Hey man, wanna buy some coke? How about trade secrets? State secrets?
- 1shooner 1y ago
  >(1) With limited well scoped exclusions for lawyers, medical records, erc. Is this referring to some actual legal precedent, or just your personal opinion?
- levocardia 1y ago
  But there's a very big difference between "no company is legally required to keep your data private" and "a company that explicitly and publically wants to protect your privacy is being legally coerced into not keeping your data private"
  - nativeit 1y ago
    No room here for the company’s purely self-interested motivations?
- davedx 1y ago
  Hello. I live in the EU. Have you heard of GDPR?
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  It's funny that you're making explicit what people are implicitly claiming in these comments, but you're downvoted because people don't want to admit it.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> with almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute Third-party privacy and relevance is a constant point of contestion in discovery. Exhibit A: this article.
- Timwi 1y ago
  Hm, this article is absolutely about a court order that exhibits “[...] almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute”, so I don't get your point. If your point is that OpenAI are contesting it, then that doesn't refute the original point that the legal system allows NYT to issue such a court order in the first place that needs contesting. Ideally the privacy of uninvolved parties would be protected by the legal system, not by OpenAI.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > this article is absolutely about a court order that exhibits “[...] almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute” How? It’s compelling OpenAI retain data they have the contractual right and technical ability to retain. Nothing is being made public, other than the order itself. Nothing is even being transferred to the plaintiff’s legal team. (At some point it will be made available. But both sides will fight over what they have access to, with the court mediating. That’s a lot of regard for third parties’ privacy.)
    - phendrenad2 1y ago
      Right, and let's hope that nothing is transferred. Although the door is probably already too far open for that. The NYT shouldn't have access to user data. My personal data isn't a pawn in their lawsuit. I didn't sign up for that. I do want to take this opportunity to encourage people to demand compensation from the NYT, if they do somehow get user data. After all, it's YOUR data. If someone uses it without you expressly agreeing to that use in a EULA, they are effectively engaging in piracy of your intellectual property, and you should be able to get damages. And if a judge approved it? Sue the judge, too. Hell, that's what the world has come to isn't it? The legal system is a big war between corporations and we, the people, are just carried on the wind. (I am not a lawyer, but whatever the equivalent of a "lawyer" is in the court of public opinion, I think I'm slowly becoming one out of necessity)
thinkingtoilet 1y ago
The privacy onus is entirely on the company. If Open AI is concerned about user privacy then don't collect that data. End of story.
- acheron 1y ago
  …the whole point of this story is that the court is forcing them to collect the data.
  - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
    You're telling me you don't think Open AI is already collecting chat logs?
    - dghlsakjg 1y ago
      Yes. In the API that is an explicit option, as well as in the paid consumer product as well. The amount of business that they stand to lose by maliciously flouting that part of their contract is in the billions.
      - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
        You can trust Sam Altman. I do not.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        I can't remember the last time a tech company has collected less data than they admit. If you read the privacy policies you agree to, they have access to everything and outright admit it will be logged. That API option is merely a request, and absolutely need not be respected. I can't believe we're still doing this rigamarole. If the product is not specifically designed, engineered, and open-sourced to be as privacy protecting as possible and it's not literally running on a computer you own, you have zero expectation of privacy. Once this has been proven 1 million times we don't need to prove it anymore, we can just assume and that's a very reasonable assumption.
    - 1y ago

by lxgr 1y ago

Arainach 1y ago

What right to privacy? There is no right to have your interactions with a company (1) remain private, nor should there be. Even if there was you agree to let OpenAI do essentially whatever they want with your data - including hand it over to the courts in response to a subpoena. (1) With limited well scoped exclusions for lawyers, medical records, erc.

lxgr 1y ago
That may be your or your jurisdiction's view, but such privacy rights definitely exist in many countries. You might have heard of the GDPR, but even before that, several countries had "privacy by default" laws on the books.
Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
But if both the parties agree, then there should be The freedom to stay private. Your comment is dystopian given how the interaction is basically like how some people treat ai as their "friend" imagine no matter what encrypted messaging app or smth they use, the govt still snoops
- fastball 1y ago
  Dealer-Client privilege.
bionhoward 1y ago
It’s also a matter of competition…there are other AI services available today with various privacy policies ranging from no training by default, ability to opt out of training, ability to turn off data retention, or e2e encryption. A lot of workloads (cough, working on private git repos) logically require private AI to make sense
ChadNauseam 1y ago
Given how many important interactions people have with companies in our modern age, saying "There is no right to have your interactions with a company remain private" is essentially equivalent to saying "there is no right to privacy at all". When I talk to my friends over facetime or imessage, that interaction is being mediated by Apple, as well as by my internet service provider and (I assume) many other parties.
- whilenot-dev 1y ago
  Privacy in that example would be if no party except you and your friends can access the contents of this interaction. I wouldn't want neither Apple nor my ISP to have that access. A company like OpenAI that offers a SaaS is no such friend, and in such power dynamics (individual VS company) it's probably in your best interest to have everything public if necessary.
  - lxgr 1y ago
    You're always free to keep records of your ChatGPT conversations on your end. Why tangle the data of people with very different preferences than yours up in that?
- wvenable 1y ago
  > "There is no right to have your interactions with a company remain private" is essentially equivalent to saying "there is no right to privacy at all". Legally that is a correct statement. If you want that changed, it will require legislation.
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    Really not so simple. Roe v Wade was decided based on the implied right to privacy. Sure its been overturned but if liberals get back on the court it will be un-overturned
    - nativeit 1y ago
      That’s presumably why legislation is needed?
fc417fc802 1y ago
> There is no right to have your interactions with a company (1) remain private, nor should there be. Why should two entities not be able to have a confidential interaction if that is what they both want? Certainly a court order could supersede such a right just as it could most others provided sufficient evidence. However I would expect such things to be both highly justified and narrowly targeted. This specific case isn't so much about a right to privacy as it is a more general freedom to enter into contracts with others and expect those to be honored.
- nativeit 1y ago
  Hey man, wanna buy some coke? How about trade secrets? State secrets?
1shooner 1y ago
>(1) With limited well scoped exclusions for lawyers, medical records, erc. Is this referring to some actual legal precedent, or just your personal opinion?
levocardia 1y ago
But there's a very big difference between "no company is legally required to keep your data private" and "a company that explicitly and publically wants to protect your privacy is being legally coerced into not keeping your data private"
- nativeit 1y ago
  No room here for the company’s purely self-interested motivations?
davedx 1y ago
Hello. I live in the EU. Have you heard of GDPR?
phendrenad2 1y ago
It's funny that you're making explicit what people are implicitly claiming in these comments, but you're downvoted because people don't want to admit it.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> with almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute Third-party privacy and relevance is a constant point of contestion in discovery. Exhibit A: this article.

Timwi 1y ago
Hm, this article is absolutely about a court order that exhibits “[...] almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute”, so I don't get your point. If your point is that OpenAI are contesting it, then that doesn't refute the original point that the legal system allows NYT to issue such a court order in the first place that needs contesting. Ideally the privacy of uninvolved parties would be protected by the legal system, not by OpenAI.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > this article is absolutely about a court order that exhibits “[...] almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute” How? It’s compelling OpenAI retain data they have the contractual right and technical ability to retain. Nothing is being made public, other than the order itself. Nothing is even being transferred to the plaintiff’s legal team. (At some point it will be made available. But both sides will fight over what they have access to, with the court mediating. That’s a lot of regard for third parties’ privacy.)
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    Right, and let's hope that nothing is transferred. Although the door is probably already too far open for that. The NYT shouldn't have access to user data. My personal data isn't a pawn in their lawsuit. I didn't sign up for that. I do want to take this opportunity to encourage people to demand compensation from the NYT, if they do somehow get user data. After all, it's YOUR data. If someone uses it without you expressly agreeing to that use in a EULA, they are effectively engaging in piracy of your intellectual property, and you should be able to get damages. And if a judge approved it? Sue the judge, too. Hell, that's what the world has come to isn't it? The legal system is a big war between corporations and we, the people, are just carried on the wind. (I am not a lawyer, but whatever the equivalent of a "lawyer" is in the court of public opinion, I think I'm slowly becoming one out of necessity)

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

The privacy onus is entirely on the company. If Open AI is concerned about user privacy then don't collect that data. End of story.

acheron 1y ago
…the whole point of this story is that the court is forcing them to collect the data.
- thinkingtoilet 1y ago
  You're telling me you don't think Open AI is already collecting chat logs?
  - dghlsakjg 1y ago
    Yes. In the API that is an explicit option, as well as in the paid consumer product as well. The amount of business that they stand to lose by maliciously flouting that part of their contract is in the billions.
    - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
      You can trust Sam Altman. I do not.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      I can't remember the last time a tech company has collected less data than they admit. If you read the privacy policies you agree to, they have access to everything and outright admit it will be logged. That API option is merely a request, and absolutely need not be respected. I can't believe we're still doing this rigamarole. If the product is not specifically designed, engineered, and open-sourced to be as privacy protecting as possible and it's not literally running on a computer you own, you have zero expectation of privacy. Once this has been proven 1 million times we don't need to prove it anymore, we can just assume and that's a very reasonable assumption.
  - 1y ago