4 ms·

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

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?
    - maketheman 1y ago
      Given the current balance of the court, I'd say it's about even odds we end the entire century without ever having had a liberal court the entire time. Best reasonable case we're a solid couple of decades from it, and even that's not got great odds. We'd have a better chance if anyone with power were talking about court reform to make the Supreme Court justices e.g. drawn by lot for each session from the district courts, but approximately nobody is. It'd be damn good and long overdue reform, but oh well. And the thing is, we've already had a fairly conservative court for decades. I'm pretty likely to die, even if of old age, never having seen an actually-liberal court in the US my entire life. Like, WTF. Frankly, no wonder so much of our situation is fucked up, backwards, and authoritarianism-friendly. And (sigh) any serious attempts to fix that are basically on hold for many decades more, assuming rule of law survives that long anyway. [EDIT] My point, in short, is that "we still have [thing], we just have to wait for a liberal court that'll support it" is functionally indistinguishable from not having [thing].
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.

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?
  - maketheman 1y ago
    Given the current balance of the court, I'd say it's about even odds we end the entire century without ever having had a liberal court the entire time. Best reasonable case we're a solid couple of decades from it, and even that's not got great odds. We'd have a better chance if anyone with power were talking about court reform to make the Supreme Court justices e.g. drawn by lot for each session from the district courts, but approximately nobody is. It'd be damn good and long overdue reform, but oh well. And the thing is, we've already had a fairly conservative court for decades. I'm pretty likely to die, even if of old age, never having seen an actually-liberal court in the US my entire life. Like, WTF. Frankly, no wonder so much of our situation is fucked up, backwards, and authoritarianism-friendly. And (sigh) any serious attempts to fix that are basically on hold for many decades more, assuming rule of law survives that long anyway. [EDIT] My point, in short, is that "we still have [thing], we just have to wait for a liberal court that'll support it" is functionally indistinguishable from not having [thing].

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.