10 ms·

Judge denies creating “mass surveillance program” harming all ChatGPT users

258 points by merksittich 1y ago

aydyn 1y ago
The judge is clearly not caring about this issue so arguing before her seems pointless. What is the recourse for OpenAI and users?
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  You don't have any recourse, at least not under American law. This a textbook third-party doctrine case: American law and precedent is unambiguous that once you voluntarily give your data to a third party-- e.g. when you sent it to OpenAI-- it's not yours anymore and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy about it. Probably people are going to respond to this with a bunch of exceptions, but those exceptions all have to be enumerated and granted specifically with new laws; they don't exist by default, and don't exist for OpenAI. Like it or not, the judge's ruling sits comfortably within the framework of US law as it exists at present: since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for chat logs sent to OpenAI, there's nothing to weigh against the competing interest of the active NYT case.
  - anon7000 1y ago
    Yep. This is why we need constitutional amendments or more foundational laws around privacy that changes this default. Which should be a bipartisan issue, if money had less influence in politics.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      This is the perverse incentives one rather than the money one. The judges want to order people to do things and the judges are the ones who decide if the judges ordering people to do things is constitutional. To prevent that you need Congress to tell them no, but that creates a sort of priority inversion: The machinery designed to stop the government from doing something bad unless there is consensus is then enabling government overreach unless there is consensus to stop it. It's kind of a design flaw. You want checks and balances to stop the government from doing bad things, not enable them.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    OpenAI is the actual counterparty here though and not a third party. Presumably their contracts with their users are still enforceable. Furthermore, if the third party doctrine is upheld in its most naïve form, then this would breach the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. The US must ensure equivalent privacy protections to those under the GDPR in order for the agreement to be valid. The agreement also explicitly forbids transferring information to third parties without informing those whose information is transferred.
    - yxhuvud 1y ago
      Well, I don't think anyone is expecting the framework to work this time either after earlier tries has been invalidated. It is just panicked politicians trying to kick the can to avoid the fallout that happens when it can't be kicked anymore.
      - impossiblefork 1y ago
        Yes, and I suppose the courts can't care that much about executive orders. Even so, one would think that they had some sense and wouldn't stress things that the politicians have built.
        freejazz 1y ago
        3rd party doctrine in the US is actual law... so I'm not sure what's confusing about that. The president has no power to change discovery law. That's congress. Why would a judge abrogate US law like that?
        unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
        You're confused. This is not about the FBI's right to data, it's about the New York Times' right to the same. The doctrine you're referencing is irrelevant. The magistrate is suggesting that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in chats OpenAI agreed to delete, at the request of users. This is bizarre, because there's no way for OpenAI to use data that is deleted. It's gone. It doesn't require abrogation of US law, it requires a sensible judge to sit up and recognize they just infringed on the privacy expectations of millions of people.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    > once you voluntarily give your data to a third party-- e.g. when you sent it to OpenAI-- it's not yours anymore and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy about it. The 3rd party doctrine is worse than that - the data you gave is not only not yours anymore, it is not theirs either, but the governments. They're forced to act as a government informant, without any warrant requirements. They can say "we will do our very best to keep your data confidential", and contractually bind themselves to do so, but hilariously, in the Supreme Court's wise and knowledgeable legal view, this does not create an "expectation of privacy", despite whatever vaults and encryption and careful employee vetting and armed guards standing between your data and unauthorized parties.
    - kopecs 1y ago
      I don't think it is accurate to say that the data becomes the government's or they have to act as an informant (I think that implies a bit more of an active requirement than responding to a subpoena), but I agree with the gist.
    - thayne 1y ago
      This clearly seems counter to the spirit of the 4th amendment.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - comex 1y ago
    The third-party doctrine has been weakened by the Supreme Court recently, in United States v. Jones and Carpenter v. United States. Those are court decisions, not new laws passed by Congress. See also this quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine#:~:text=warrant%2C%20noted%20that-,More%20fundamentally%2C,-it%20may%20be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine#:~:text=w... If OpenAI doesn't succeed at oral argument, then in theory they could try for an appeal either under the collateral order doctrine or seeking a writ of mandamus, but apparently these rarely succeed, especially in discovery disputes.
    - otterley 1y ago
      Justice Sotomayor's concurrence in U.S. v. Jones is not binding precedent, so I wouldn't characterize it as weakening the third-party doctrine yet.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > You don't have any recourse, at least not under American law. Implying that the recourse is to change the law. Those precedents are also fairly insane and not even consistent with one another. For example, the government needs a warrant to read your mail in the possession of the Post Office -- not only a third party but actually part of the government -- but not the digital equivalent of this when you transfer some of your documents via Google or Microsoft? This case is also not the traditional third party doctrine case. Typically you would have e.g. your private project files on Github or something which Github is retaining for reasons independent of any court order and then the court orders them to provide them to the court. In this case the judge is ordering them to retain third party data they wouldn't have otherwise kept. It's not clear what the limiting principle there would be -- could they order Microsoft to retain any of the data on everyone's PC that isn't in the cloud, because their system updater gives them arbitrary code execution on every Windows machine? Could they order your home landlord to make copies of the files in your apartment without a warrant because they have a key to the door?
    - 1659447091 1y ago
      > It's not clear what the limiting principle there would be -- could they order Microsoft to retain any of the data on everyone's PC that isn't in the cloud, because their system updater gives them arbitrary code execution on every Windows machine? My understanding is it's closer to something like: They cannot order a company to create new tools, but can tell them to not destroy the data they already have. So, in the question of MS having the ability to create a tool that extracts your data is not the same as MS already having that tool functioning and collecting all of your data that they store and are then told to simply not destroy. Similarly, VPNs that are not set-up to create logs can't keep or hand over what they don't have. Laws can be made to require the collection and storage of all user data by every online company, but we're not there -- yet. Many companies already do it on their own, and the user then decides if that's acceptable or not to continue using that service. If the company created their service to not have the data in the first place, this probably never would have found its way to a judge. Their service would cost more, be slower, and probably be difficult to iterate on as it's easier to hack things together in a fast moving space then build privacy/security first solutions.
  - andrekandre 1y ago
    > once you voluntarily give your data to a third party-- e.g. when you sent it to OpenAI-- it's not yours anymore and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy about it. sorry for the layperson question, but does this apply then to my company's storage of confidential info on say google drive, even with an enterprise agreement?
- mvdtnz 1y ago
  "OpenAI user" is not an inherent trait. Just use another product, make it OpenAI's problem.
- dylan604 1y ago
  appealing whatever ruling this judge makes?
  - otterley 1y ago
    You can't appeal a case you're not a party to.
    - baobun 1y ago
      It's a direct answer to the question what recourse OpenAI has. Users should stop sending information that shouldn't be public to US cloud giants like OpenAI.
      - otterley 1y ago
        Do you really think a European court wouldn't similarly force a provider to preserve records in response to being accused of destroying records pertinent to a legal dispute?
        baobun 1y ago
        Fundamentally, on-prem or just foregoing is the safest way, yes. If one still uses these remote services it's also important to be prudent about exactly what data you share with them when doing so[0]. Note I did not say "Send your sensitive data to these countries instead". The laws still look completely different in US and EU though. EU has stronger protections and directives on privacy and weaker supremacy of IP owners. I do not believe lawyers in any copyright case would get access to user data in a case like this. There is also a gap in the capabilities and prevalence of govt to force individual companies or even employees to insert and maintain secret backdoors with gag orders outside of court (though parts of the EU seem to be working hard to close that gap recently...). [0]: Using it to derive baking recipes is not the same as using it to directly draft personal letters. Using it over VPN with pseudonym account info is not the same as using it from your home IP registered to your personal email with all your personals filled out and your credit card linked. Running a coding agent straight on your workstation is different to sandboxing it yourself to ensure it can only access what it needs.
- FpUser 1y ago
  >"What is the recourse for OpenAI and users?" Start using services of countries who are unlikely to submit data to the US.
- freejazz 1y ago
  Stop giving your information to third parties with the expectation that they keep it private when they wont and cannot. Your banking information is also subject to subpoena... I don't see anyone here complaining about that. Just the hot legal issue of the day that programmers are intent on misunderstanding.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Not a real answer, but I think a local LLM is going to be the way to go. I've been playing with them for some time now — and, yeah, they're still not there with the save context, hardware requirements needed for a really good model... But I suspect like anything else in tech, a year or two from now a decent local LLM will not be such a stretch. I can't wait actually. It's less about privacy to me than to being offline.
  - om8 1y ago
    > a local LLM is going to be the way to go Non-technicals don't know how LLMs work, and, more importantly, don't care about their privacy. For a technology to be widely used, by definition, you need to make it appealing to the masses, and there is almost zero demand for private LLM right now. That's why I don't think that local llms will win. There are narrow use cases where regulations can force local llm usage (like for medical stuff), but overall I think that services will win (as they always do)
    - chii 1y ago
      > there is almost zero demand for private LLM right now. you need some really expensive hardware to run a local LLM, most of which is unavailable to the average user. The demand might just simply be hidden as these users do not know nor want to expend the resources for it. but i have hope that the hardware costs will come down eventually, enough that it reveals the demand for local LLM. After all, i prefer my private questions to an LLM not be ever revealed.
    - fakedang 1y ago
      Most companies would kill for private LLM capabilities were it possible. I think Mistral's even making it part of their enterprise strategy.
    - JKCalhoun 1y ago
      I still happen to trust Apple with my cloud data, with their secure enclave. To that end, an Apple solution where my history/context is kept in my cloud account, perhaps even a future custom Apple chip that could run some measure of a local LLM.... This "aiPhone" might be the mainstream solution that non-technicals will enjoy.
merksittich 1y ago
Previous discussion: OpenAI slams court order to save all ChatGPT logs, including deleted chats https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44185913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44185913
RcouF1uZ4gsC 1y ago
""Proposed Intervenor does not explain how a court’s document retention order that directs the preservation, segregation, and retention of certain privately held data by a private company for the limited purposes of litigation is, or could be, a 'nationwide mass surveillance program,'" Wang wrote. "It is not. The judiciary is not a law enforcement agency."" This is a horrible view of privacy. This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement. For example, if the New York Times sues that people using an a no scripts addin, are bypassing its paywall, can a judge require that the addin collect and retain all sites visited by all its users and then say its ok because the judiciary is not a law enforcement agency?
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  > This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement. See my comment above in reply to aydyn: in general, "privacy rights" do not exist in American law, and as such the judge is violating nothing. People are always surprised to learn this, but it's the truth. There's the Fourth Amendment, but courts have consistently interpreted that very narrowly to mean your personal effects in your possession are secure against seizure specifically by the government. It does not apply to data you give to third-parties, under the third-party doctrine. There are also various laws granting privacy rights in specific domains, but those only apply to the extent of the law in question; there is no constitutional right to privacy and no broad law granting it either. Until that situation changes, you probably shouldn't use the term "privacy rights" in the context of American law: since those don't really exist, you'll just end up confusing yourself and others.
- lovich 1y ago
  You don’t have privacy rights once you hand over your data to a third party. This isn’t a new issue OpenAI is forcing the courts to wrestle with for the first time.
strictnein 1y ago
Maybe it's the quotes selected for the article, but it seems like the judge simply doesn't get the objections. And the reasoning is really strange: "Even if the Court were to entertain such questions, they would only work to unduly delay the resolution of the legal questions actually at issue." So because the lawsuit pertains to copyright, we can ignore possible constitutional issues because it'll make things take longer? Also, rejecting something out of hand simply because a lawyer didn't draft it seems really antithetical to what a judge should be doing. There is no requirement for a lawyer to be utilized.
- judofyr 1y ago
  > … but it seems like the judge simply doesn't get the objections. And the reasoning is really strange The full order is linked in the article: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/NYT-v-OpenAI-Order-6-20-25.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/NYT-v.... If you read that it becomes more clear: The person who complained here filed a specific "motion to intervene" which has a strict set of requirements. These requirements were not met. IANAL, but it doesn't seem too strange to me here. > Also, rejecting something out of hand simply because a lawyer didn't draft it seems really antithetical to what a judge should be doing. There is no requirement for a lawyer to be utilized. This is also mentioned in the order: An individual have the right to represent themselves, but a corporation does not. This was filed by a corporation initially. The judge did exactly what a judge what supposed to do: Interpret the law as written.
  - yieldcrv 1y ago
    So the arguments are sound but the procedure wasnt followed so someone else just needs to follow the procedure and get our chats deletable?
    - otterley 1y ago
      The judge went further to say the arguments weren't sound, either.
cactusplant7374 1y ago
Is there any proof that ChatGPT was deleting chats? I would think they would keep them to use as training data.
- colkassad 1y ago
  There should be a law about what "delete" means for online services. I used to delete old comments on reddit until their AI caught up to my behavior and shadow-banned my 17 year-old account. As soon as that happened, I could see every comment I ever deleted in my history again. The only consolation is that no one but me could see my history anymore.
  - gunalx 1y ago
    As long as you are in the eu GDPR gives you the right to be forgotten.
    - derwiki 1y ago
      Or CCPA in California
      - acka 1y ago
        They're both paper tigers. The CLOUD Act and that massive data center in Utah trump* each of them respectively. What happens in the US stays in the US, delete button or not. * Deliberately ambiguous.
- ianlevesque 1y ago
  This kind of conspiracy theory comes up a lot on here. Most of these products have the option to allow or deny that and contrary to the opinions here those policies are then followed. This whole episode is news because it violates that.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
The "judge" here is actually a magistrate whose term expires in less than a year.[1] Last time I saw such weak decision-making from a magistrate I was pleased to see they were not renewed, and I hope the same for this individual. [1] https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/Public%20Notice%20for%20Reappointment%20of%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Wang%20(2).pdf https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/Public...
- freejazz 1y ago
  I don't think a routine application of 3rd party doctrine should sink a magistrate judge.
  - unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
    So in your view, there is no expectation of privacy in anything typed into the Internet. And, if a news organization, or a blogger, or whoever, came up with some colorable argument to discover everything everyone types into the Internet, and sued the right Internet hub-- you think this is totally routine and no one should be annoyed in the least, and moreover no one should be allowed to intervene or move for protective order, because it would be more convenient for the court to just hand over all the Internet to the news or blogger or whoever. It's precisely that perspective that I think should sink a magistrate, hundreds of times over.
    - vkou 1y ago
      > So in your view, there is no expectation of privacy in anything typed into the Internet. In the view of American law, as it is currently written and settled, when what you've typed into the internet is relevant to ongoing litigation, yes, there is no expectation of privacy from discovery for anything you typed into the particular service on the internet that's being litigated. Likewise, there's no expectation of privacy if you're not either litigant, but you have been subpoenaed, and forced to testify. The fifth amendment only protects you from self-incrimination. There are far more horrifying aspects of American law, as it is currently written and settled, I can't say I have the energy to be all that outraged over this one, as opposed to any of the other insane shit that's currently going on. When people are routinely being disappeared without due process or legal recourse, the issue of 'a few lawyers sworn to secrecy going over some user queries under the constraints of a judge in an active litigation' is not actually a serious issue. This category of thing happens all the time, and it's uncomfortable for third parties involved, but a millenium of common law has generally put the needs of the courts reaching a fair decision in a case above the needs of unrelated third parties to not be bothered by them. Losing this case would be an incredibly serious issue for OpenAI's business model though, though, which is why it's throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks, and is shouting for sympathy to anyone who wants to listen. I can't say I give a fig about their financial well-being, though.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mac-attack 1y ago
To me, this is akin to Google saying that they don't want to follow a court-ordered law because it would be a privacy invasion.. I feel like OpenAI framed the issue as a privacy conversation and some news journalist are going along with it without questioning the source and their current privacy policy re: data retention and data sharing affiliates, vendors, etc. It takes 30 seconds to save the privacy policy and upload it to an LLM and ask it questions and it quickly becomes clear that their privacy policy allows them to hold onto data indefinitely as is.
akimbostrawman 1y ago
fighting microsoft to get the illusion of privacy is the modern day fight against windmills
notnullorvoid 1y ago
Even if OpenAI and other LLM providers were prohibited by law not to retain the data (opposite of this forced retention), no one should trust them to do so. If you want to input sensitive data into an LLM, do so locally.
- sebastiennight 1y ago
  > prohibited by law not to retain the data is the same as forced retention. You've got a double negative here that I think you didn't intend.
  - notnullorvoid 1y ago
    Oops, you're correct it was not intended. "prohibited by law from retaining data"
HenryBemis 1y ago
I remember back in the day when I made the mistake to use Facebook and iPhones that a) Facebook never actually deleted anything and b) iMessage was also not deleting (but both were merely hiding). This is why in this part of the world we have GDPR and it would be amazing to see OpenAI receiving penalties for billions of euros, while at the same time a) the EU will receive more money to spend, and b) the US apparatus will grow stronger because it will know everything about everyone (the very few things they didn't already know via the FAANGS. Lately I have been thinking that "they" play chess with our lives, and we sleepwalking to either a Brave New World (for the elites) and/or a 1984/animal farm for the rest. To give a more pleasant analogy, the humans in WALL-E or a darker analogy, the humans in the Matrix.
- derwiki 1y ago
  CCPA also allows for you to have your data deleted
freejazz 1y ago
"creating mass surveillance program harming all ChatGPT users" is just taking the lawyers' words out of their mouth at face value. Totally ridiculous. And of course its going to lead to extreme skepticism from the crowd here when its put forward that way. Another way to do describe this: "legal discovery process during a lawsuit continues on as it normally would in any other case"
lifeisstillgood 1y ago
We (various human societies) do need to deal with this new ability to surveil every aspect of our lives. There are clear and obvious benefits in the future - medicine, epidemiology will have enormous reservoirs of data to draw on, entire new fields of mass behavioural psychology will come into being (I call it MAssive open online psychology or moop) and we might even find governments able to use minute by minute data of their citizens to you know, provide services to the ones they miss… But all of this assumes a legal framework we can trust - and I don’t think this comes into being piecemeal with judges. My personal take is that data that, without the existence of activity of a natural human, data that woukd not exist or be different must belong to that human - and that it can only be held in trust without explicit payment to that human if the data is used in the best interests of the human (something something criminal notwithstanding) Blathering on a bit I know but I think “in the best interests of the user / citizen is a really high and valuable bar, and also that by default, if my activities create or enable the data,it belongs to me, really forces data companies to think. Be interested in some thoughts
- meowkit 1y ago
  Zero knowledge proofs + blockchain stream payments + IPFS or similar based storage with encryption and incentive mechanisms. Its still outside the overton window (especially on HN), but the only way that I’ve seen where we can get the benefits of big data and maintain privacy is by locking the data to the user and not aggregating it in all these centralized silos that then are incentivized to build black markets around that data.
  - warkdarrior 1y ago
    How do you apply ZKPs to ChatGPT queries?
    - NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
      As far as cryptographic solutions go: what would be ideal is homomorphic encryption, where the server can do the calculations on data it can't decrypt (your query) and send you something back that only you can decrypt. Assuming that's unworkable, we could still have anonymity via cryptocurrency payments for tokens (don't do accounts) + ipfs or tor or similar. You can carry around your query + answer history with you.
tptacek 1y ago
This doesn't seem especially newsworthy. Oral arguments are set for OpenAI itself to oppose the preservation order that has everyone so (understandably) up in arms. Seems unlikely that two motions from random ChatGPT users were going to determine the outcome in advance of that.
- gridspy 1y ago
  Seems that a judge does not understand the impact of asking company X to "retain all data" and is unwilling to rapidly reconsider. Part of what makes this newsworthy is the impact of the initial ruling.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    If HN decided these things, decisions would be a lot quicker and easier to predict.
  - DannyBee 1y ago
    Retention orders of this kind are not uncommon and the judge has not ordered it be turned over to anyone until they hear arguments on it. I note with amazement that tons of hn users with zero legal experience, let alone judge experience, are sure its the judge who doesn't understand, not them. Based on what I don't know but they really are sure they get it more than the judge!
    - gridspy 1y ago
      Underlying this issue is that the judicial system (or the patent system, or the political system) is not populated with enough individuals possessing software engineering "common sense." It is highly likely that this is not confined to just software, I'm sure other engineering or complex disciplines feel the same way about their discipline. How do we have experts inform these decisions without falling into the trap of lobbying where the rich control the political and legal sphere? Anyway, I cede you the point that the US law does not match my "common sense" esp around this 3rd party rule mentioned in other comments. It kind of sucks that US "winning the internet" means that even non-US citizens are subject to US law in this regard.
Akranazon 1y ago
> Judge denies creating “mass surveillance program” harming all ChatGPT users What a horribly worded title. A judge rejected the creation of a mass surveillance program? A judge denied that creating a mass surveillance program harms all ChatGPT users? A judge denied that she created a mass surveillance program, and its creation (in the opinion of the columnist) harms all ChatGPT users? The judge's act of denying resulted in the creation of a mass surveillance program? The fact that a judge denied what she did harms all ChatGPT users? (After reading the article, it's apparently the third one.)
- elefanten 1y ago
  The third one is the only correct way to interpret the title.
  - Akranazon 1y ago
    [dead]
xbar 1y ago
"Judge creates mass surveillance program; denies it."
- o11c 1y ago
  I really wish we had broad laws requiring telling the truth about concrete things (in contracts, by government officials, etc.). But we don't even have any real enforcement even for blatant perjury.
delusional 1y ago
It's crazy how much I hate every single top level take in this thread. Real human beings actual real work is allegedly being abused to commit fraud at a massive scale, robbing those artist of the ability to sustain themselves. Your false perception of intimacy while asking the computer Oracle to write you smut does not trump the fair and just discovery process.
- rybosome 1y ago
  You clearly have an emotional connection to people that you feel are being harmed by AI, so I’m not going to gaslight you about that. But I will tell you that real humans asking private, real questions of LLMs is also happening, and these two things aren’t related. Many people who don’t have the technical literacy to understand the implications are sending messages with extremely sensitive personal, medical, and financial information. Straw-manning all of these users as tech-savvy, horny IP thieves is ridiculous. I could find your argument more persuasive if you actually considered the privacy needs of the people who had nothing to do with building or perpetuating the systems. EDIT: to be clear I’m not sure what I think the solution should be, as I also understand the need for discovery.
- protocolture 1y ago
  Yeah nice strawman, but theres been plenty of leaked chats with ChatGPT (just stuff that's been set to public accidentally) that are so obviously "private" in nature that its not funny. Sorry but, humans have a right to privacy beyond your dislike of the services they use.
devmor 1y ago
I find it really strange how many people are outraged or shocked about this. I have to assume that they are all simply ignorant of the fact that this exact same preservation of your data happens in every other service you use constantly other than those that are completely E2EE like signal chats. Gmail is preserving your emails and documents. Your cell provider is preserving your texts and call histories. Reddit is preserving your posts and DMs. Xitter is preserving your posts and DMs. This is not to make a judgement about whether or not this should be considered acceptable, but it is the de facto state of online services.
- protocolture 1y ago
  >I find it really strange how many people are outraged >This is not to make a judgement about whether or not this should be considered acceptable A person is outraged because they find it unacceptable. This is beyond terms and conditions, OpenAI is being forced to keep data they want to discard for the user. I am shocked that you are shocked, that people are taking a position on this when you suggest you dont take a position on this.
  - dwattttt 1y ago
    A person should get out more. They'd probably learn a lot, by the sound of it.
  - devmor 1y ago
    Outrage suggests a level of surprise with the anger. This is not surprising at all. When you hand over your data to a 3rd party, you should not expect it to remain private from the government that rules over that party. The entire 21st century has been a constant deluge of learning how much we are all monitored constantly.
- 9283409232 1y ago
  I think you'd be surprised at the amount of people who don't understand this. Go ask a random person on the street or a nontechnical friend you have and see what answer you get.
exq 1y ago
If anyone is under the impression OpenAI isn't saving every character typed into the chats and every bit sent to the API, I would implore them to look at the current board members.
- JCharante 1y ago
  smh it's not like one of their founders is out there collecting biometrics
  - blitzar 1y ago
    collecting eyeballs
keernan 1y ago
After reading the actual Order, it appears the defendants filed an application to the Court expressing concern that plaintiff, OpenAI, was potentially destroying evidence and to prevent a spoliation claim (relief due to destruction of evidence), the Judge Ordered OpenAI to stop destruction of anything (eg to preserve everything). A person not a party to the action then filed an application to intervene in the lawsuit because the Judge's Preservation Order constituted a breach of the terms of his contract with OpenAI regarding his use of OpenAI's product - more specifically that the Intervenor entered into usage of OpenAI's product upon the agreement that OpenAI would not preserve any portion of Intervenor's communication with the OpenAI product. The problem, as I see it, is that the Judge did not address the issue that her Order constituted a breach of Intervenor's contractual interests. That suggests to me that Intervenor did not expressly state that he held contractual rights that the Court's Order was violating. I would think the next step would be to file an Order to Show Cause directly against the Magistrate Judge claiming the Magistrate's Order constitutes an unconstitutional government taking of property without Due Process.
udev4096 1y ago
No judge can block any kind of mass surveillance program which has been ongoing since more than a decade now. This is a joke and completely irrelevant. OpenAI, just like every other corp, is storing as much as they can to profile you and your bits stream
- evbogue 1y ago
  What we type into the textarea is more valuable than the returned output from the llm.
dramm 1y ago
Your honor, it appears somebody has obtained your Netflix video rental history and has been asking ChatGPT about it.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"However, McSherry warned that "it's only a matter of time before law enforcement and private litigants start going to OpenAI to try to get chat histories/records about users for all sorts of purposes, just as they do already for search histories, social media posts, etc."" If this is a concern, is the the best course of action for McSherry to stop using ChatGPT. We have read this sort of "advice" this countless times in HN comments relating to use of software/websites controlled by so-called "tech" companies. Something like, "If you are concerned about [e.g., privacy, whatever], then do not use it. Most users do not care." Don't use _____. This is a common refrain in HN comment threads. "OpenAI will have a chance to defend panicked users on June 26, when Wang hears oral arguments over the ChatGPT maker's concerns about the preservation order." "Some users appear to be questioning how hard OpenAI will fight. In particular, Hunt is worried that OpenAI may not prioritize defending users' privacy if other concerns-like "financial costs of the case, desire for a quick resolution, and avoiding reputational damage"-are deemed more important, his filing said." "Intervening ChatGPT users had tried to argue that, at minimum, OpenAI should have been required to directly notify users that their deleted and anonymous chats were being retained. Hunt suggested that it would have stopped him from inputting sensitive data sooner." Any OpenAI argument that invokes "user privacy" is only doing so as an attempt to protect OpenAi from potentially incriminating discovery. OpenAI will argue for its own interests.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  Correction: If this is a concern, is the best course of action for _Hunt_ to stop using ChatGPT.
casey2 1y ago
OpenAI already saves all chats
chha 1y ago
Even though this doesn't apply to enterprise customers, I'm just waiting for European customers to wake up and realize that ChatGPT isn't compatible with the GDPR today. And if the court suddenly decides that enterprise customers should also be part of the preservation order it'll be a big hit for OpenAI.
sahil_sharma0 1y ago
[dead]

258 points by merksittich 1y ago

The judge is clearly not caring about this issue so arguing before her seems pointless. What is the recourse for OpenAI and users?

Analemma_ 1y ago
You don't have any recourse, at least not under American law. This a textbook third-party doctrine case: American law and precedent is unambiguous that once you voluntarily give your data to a third party-- e.g. when you sent it to OpenAI-- it's not yours anymore and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy about it. Probably people are going to respond to this with a bunch of exceptions, but those exceptions all have to be enumerated and granted specifically with new laws; they don't exist by default, and don't exist for OpenAI. Like it or not, the judge's ruling sits comfortably within the framework of US law as it exists at present: since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for chat logs sent to OpenAI, there's nothing to weigh against the competing interest of the active NYT case.
- anon7000 1y ago
  Yep. This is why we need constitutional amendments or more foundational laws around privacy that changes this default. Which should be a bipartisan issue, if money had less influence in politics.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    This is the perverse incentives one rather than the money one. The judges want to order people to do things and the judges are the ones who decide if the judges ordering people to do things is constitutional. To prevent that you need Congress to tell them no, but that creates a sort of priority inversion: The machinery designed to stop the government from doing something bad unless there is consensus is then enabling government overreach unless there is consensus to stop it. It's kind of a design flaw. You want checks and balances to stop the government from doing bad things, not enable them.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  OpenAI is the actual counterparty here though and not a third party. Presumably their contracts with their users are still enforceable. Furthermore, if the third party doctrine is upheld in its most naïve form, then this would breach the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. The US must ensure equivalent privacy protections to those under the GDPR in order for the agreement to be valid. The agreement also explicitly forbids transferring information to third parties without informing those whose information is transferred.
  - yxhuvud 1y ago
    Well, I don't think anyone is expecting the framework to work this time either after earlier tries has been invalidated. It is just panicked politicians trying to kick the can to avoid the fallout that happens when it can't be kicked anymore.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Yes, and I suppose the courts can't care that much about executive orders. Even so, one would think that they had some sense and wouldn't stress things that the politicians have built.
      - freejazz 1y ago
        3rd party doctrine in the US is actual law... so I'm not sure what's confusing about that. The president has no power to change discovery law. That's congress. Why would a judge abrogate US law like that?
        unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
        You're confused. This is not about the FBI's right to data, it's about the New York Times' right to the same. The doctrine you're referencing is irrelevant. The magistrate is suggesting that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in chats OpenAI agreed to delete, at the request of users. This is bizarre, because there's no way for OpenAI to use data that is deleted. It's gone. It doesn't require abrogation of US law, it requires a sensible judge to sit up and recognize they just infringed on the privacy expectations of millions of people.
- like_any_other 1y ago
  > once you voluntarily give your data to a third party-- e.g. when you sent it to OpenAI-- it's not yours anymore and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy about it. The 3rd party doctrine is worse than that - the data you gave is not only not yours anymore, it is not theirs either, but the governments. They're forced to act as a government informant, without any warrant requirements. They can say "we will do our very best to keep your data confidential", and contractually bind themselves to do so, but hilariously, in the Supreme Court's wise and knowledgeable legal view, this does not create an "expectation of privacy", despite whatever vaults and encryption and careful employee vetting and armed guards standing between your data and unauthorized parties.
  - kopecs 1y ago
    I don't think it is accurate to say that the data becomes the government's or they have to act as an informant (I think that implies a bit more of an active requirement than responding to a subpoena), but I agree with the gist.
  - thayne 1y ago
    This clearly seems counter to the spirit of the 4th amendment.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- comex 1y ago
  The third-party doctrine has been weakened by the Supreme Court recently, in United States v. Jones and Carpenter v. United States. Those are court decisions, not new laws passed by Congress. See also this quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine#:~:text=warrant%2C%20noted%20that-,More%20fundamentally%2C,-it%20may%20be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine#:~:text=w... If OpenAI doesn't succeed at oral argument, then in theory they could try for an appeal either under the collateral order doctrine or seeking a writ of mandamus, but apparently these rarely succeed, especially in discovery disputes.
  - otterley 1y ago
    Justice Sotomayor's concurrence in U.S. v. Jones is not binding precedent, so I wouldn't characterize it as weakening the third-party doctrine yet.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > You don't have any recourse, at least not under American law. Implying that the recourse is to change the law. Those precedents are also fairly insane and not even consistent with one another. For example, the government needs a warrant to read your mail in the possession of the Post Office -- not only a third party but actually part of the government -- but not the digital equivalent of this when you transfer some of your documents via Google or Microsoft? This case is also not the traditional third party doctrine case. Typically you would have e.g. your private project files on Github or something which Github is retaining for reasons independent of any court order and then the court orders them to provide them to the court. In this case the judge is ordering them to retain third party data they wouldn't have otherwise kept. It's not clear what the limiting principle there would be -- could they order Microsoft to retain any of the data on everyone's PC that isn't in the cloud, because their system updater gives them arbitrary code execution on every Windows machine? Could they order your home landlord to make copies of the files in your apartment without a warrant because they have a key to the door?
  - 1659447091 1y ago
    > It's not clear what the limiting principle there would be -- could they order Microsoft to retain any of the data on everyone's PC that isn't in the cloud, because their system updater gives them arbitrary code execution on every Windows machine? My understanding is it's closer to something like: They cannot order a company to create new tools, but can tell them to not destroy the data they already have. So, in the question of MS having the ability to create a tool that extracts your data is not the same as MS already having that tool functioning and collecting all of your data that they store and are then told to simply not destroy. Similarly, VPNs that are not set-up to create logs can't keep or hand over what they don't have. Laws can be made to require the collection and storage of all user data by every online company, but we're not there -- yet. Many companies already do it on their own, and the user then decides if that's acceptable or not to continue using that service. If the company created their service to not have the data in the first place, this probably never would have found its way to a judge. Their service would cost more, be slower, and probably be difficult to iterate on as it's easier to hack things together in a fast moving space then build privacy/security first solutions.
- andrekandre 1y ago
  > once you voluntarily give your data to a third party-- e.g. when you sent it to OpenAI-- it's not yours anymore and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy about it. sorry for the layperson question, but does this apply then to my company's storage of confidential info on say google drive, even with an enterprise agreement?
mvdtnz 1y ago
"OpenAI user" is not an inherent trait. Just use another product, make it OpenAI's problem.
dylan604 1y ago
appealing whatever ruling this judge makes?
- otterley 1y ago
  You can't appeal a case you're not a party to.
  - baobun 1y ago
    It's a direct answer to the question what recourse OpenAI has. Users should stop sending information that shouldn't be public to US cloud giants like OpenAI.
    - otterley 1y ago
      Do you really think a European court wouldn't similarly force a provider to preserve records in response to being accused of destroying records pertinent to a legal dispute?
      - baobun 1y ago
        Fundamentally, on-prem or just foregoing is the safest way, yes. If one still uses these remote services it's also important to be prudent about exactly what data you share with them when doing so[0]. Note I did not say "Send your sensitive data to these countries instead". The laws still look completely different in US and EU though. EU has stronger protections and directives on privacy and weaker supremacy of IP owners. I do not believe lawyers in any copyright case would get access to user data in a case like this. There is also a gap in the capabilities and prevalence of govt to force individual companies or even employees to insert and maintain secret backdoors with gag orders outside of court (though parts of the EU seem to be working hard to close that gap recently...). [0]: Using it to derive baking recipes is not the same as using it to directly draft personal letters. Using it over VPN with pseudonym account info is not the same as using it from your home IP registered to your personal email with all your personals filled out and your credit card linked. Running a coding agent straight on your workstation is different to sandboxing it yourself to ensure it can only access what it needs.
FpUser 1y ago
>"What is the recourse for OpenAI and users?" Start using services of countries who are unlikely to submit data to the US.
freejazz 1y ago
Stop giving your information to third parties with the expectation that they keep it private when they wont and cannot. Your banking information is also subject to subpoena... I don't see anyone here complaining about that. Just the hot legal issue of the day that programmers are intent on misunderstanding.
JKCalhoun 1y ago
Not a real answer, but I think a local LLM is going to be the way to go. I've been playing with them for some time now — and, yeah, they're still not there with the save context, hardware requirements needed for a really good model... But I suspect like anything else in tech, a year or two from now a decent local LLM will not be such a stretch. I can't wait actually. It's less about privacy to me than to being offline.
- om8 1y ago
  > a local LLM is going to be the way to go Non-technicals don't know how LLMs work, and, more importantly, don't care about their privacy. For a technology to be widely used, by definition, you need to make it appealing to the masses, and there is almost zero demand for private LLM right now. That's why I don't think that local llms will win. There are narrow use cases where regulations can force local llm usage (like for medical stuff), but overall I think that services will win (as they always do)
  - chii 1y ago
    > there is almost zero demand for private LLM right now. you need some really expensive hardware to run a local LLM, most of which is unavailable to the average user. The demand might just simply be hidden as these users do not know nor want to expend the resources for it. but i have hope that the hardware costs will come down eventually, enough that it reveals the demand for local LLM. After all, i prefer my private questions to an LLM not be ever revealed.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    Most companies would kill for private LLM capabilities were it possible. I think Mistral's even making it part of their enterprise strategy.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    I still happen to trust Apple with my cloud data, with their secure enclave. To that end, an Apple solution where my history/context is kept in my cloud account, perhaps even a future custom Apple chip that could run some measure of a local LLM.... This "aiPhone" might be the mainstream solution that non-technicals will enjoy.

merksittich 1y ago

Previous discussion: OpenAI slams court order to save all ChatGPT logs, including deleted chats https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44185913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44185913

RcouF1uZ4gsC 1y ago

""Proposed Intervenor does not explain how a court’s document retention order that directs the preservation, segregation, and retention of certain privately held data by a private company for the limited purposes of litigation is, or could be, a 'nationwide mass surveillance program,'" Wang wrote. "It is not. The judiciary is not a law enforcement agency."" This is a horrible view of privacy. This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement. For example, if the New York Times sues that people using an a no scripts addin, are bypassing its paywall, can a judge require that the addin collect and retain all sites visited by all its users and then say its ok because the judiciary is not a law enforcement agency?

Analemma_ 1y ago
> This gives unlimited ability for judges to violate the privacy rights of people while stating they are not law enforcement. See my comment above in reply to aydyn: in general, "privacy rights" do not exist in American law, and as such the judge is violating nothing. People are always surprised to learn this, but it's the truth. There's the Fourth Amendment, but courts have consistently interpreted that very narrowly to mean your personal effects in your possession are secure against seizure specifically by the government. It does not apply to data you give to third-parties, under the third-party doctrine. There are also various laws granting privacy rights in specific domains, but those only apply to the extent of the law in question; there is no constitutional right to privacy and no broad law granting it either. Until that situation changes, you probably shouldn't use the term "privacy rights" in the context of American law: since those don't really exist, you'll just end up confusing yourself and others.
lovich 1y ago
You don’t have privacy rights once you hand over your data to a third party. This isn’t a new issue OpenAI is forcing the courts to wrestle with for the first time.

strictnein 1y ago

Maybe it's the quotes selected for the article, but it seems like the judge simply doesn't get the objections. And the reasoning is really strange: "Even if the Court were to entertain such questions, they would only work to unduly delay the resolution of the legal questions actually at issue." So because the lawsuit pertains to copyright, we can ignore possible constitutional issues because it'll make things take longer? Also, rejecting something out of hand simply because a lawyer didn't draft it seems really antithetical to what a judge should be doing. There is no requirement for a lawyer to be utilized.

judofyr 1y ago
> … but it seems like the judge simply doesn't get the objections. And the reasoning is really strange The full order is linked in the article: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/NYT-v-OpenAI-Order-6-20-25.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/NYT-v.... If you read that it becomes more clear: The person who complained here filed a specific "motion to intervene" which has a strict set of requirements. These requirements were not met. IANAL, but it doesn't seem too strange to me here. > Also, rejecting something out of hand simply because a lawyer didn't draft it seems really antithetical to what a judge should be doing. There is no requirement for a lawyer to be utilized. This is also mentioned in the order: An individual have the right to represent themselves, but a corporation does not. This was filed by a corporation initially. The judge did exactly what a judge what supposed to do: Interpret the law as written.
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  So the arguments are sound but the procedure wasnt followed so someone else just needs to follow the procedure and get our chats deletable?
  - otterley 1y ago
    The judge went further to say the arguments weren't sound, either.

cactusplant7374 1y ago

Is there any proof that ChatGPT was deleting chats? I would think they would keep them to use as training data.

colkassad 1y ago
There should be a law about what "delete" means for online services. I used to delete old comments on reddit until their AI caught up to my behavior and shadow-banned my 17 year-old account. As soon as that happened, I could see every comment I ever deleted in my history again. The only consolation is that no one but me could see my history anymore.
- gunalx 1y ago
  As long as you are in the eu GDPR gives you the right to be forgotten.
  - derwiki 1y ago
    Or CCPA in California
    - acka 1y ago
      They're both paper tigers. The CLOUD Act and that massive data center in Utah trump* each of them respectively. What happens in the US stays in the US, delete button or not. * Deliberately ambiguous.
ianlevesque 1y ago
This kind of conspiracy theory comes up a lot on here. Most of these products have the option to allow or deny that and contrary to the opinions here those policies are then followed. This whole episode is news because it violates that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

unyttigfjelltol 1y ago

The "judge" here is actually a magistrate whose term expires in less than a year.[1] Last time I saw such weak decision-making from a magistrate I was pleased to see they were not renewed, and I hope the same for this individual. [1] https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/Public%20Notice%20for%20Reappointment%20of%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Wang%20(2).pdf https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/Public...

freejazz 1y ago
I don't think a routine application of 3rd party doctrine should sink a magistrate judge.
- unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
  So in your view, there is no expectation of privacy in anything typed into the Internet. And, if a news organization, or a blogger, or whoever, came up with some colorable argument to discover everything everyone types into the Internet, and sued the right Internet hub-- you think this is totally routine and no one should be annoyed in the least, and moreover no one should be allowed to intervene or move for protective order, because it would be more convenient for the court to just hand over all the Internet to the news or blogger or whoever. It's precisely that perspective that I think should sink a magistrate, hundreds of times over.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > So in your view, there is no expectation of privacy in anything typed into the Internet. In the view of American law, as it is currently written and settled, when what you've typed into the internet is relevant to ongoing litigation, yes, there is no expectation of privacy from discovery for anything you typed into the particular service on the internet that's being litigated. Likewise, there's no expectation of privacy if you're not either litigant, but you have been subpoenaed, and forced to testify. The fifth amendment only protects you from self-incrimination. There are far more horrifying aspects of American law, as it is currently written and settled, I can't say I have the energy to be all that outraged over this one, as opposed to any of the other insane shit that's currently going on. When people are routinely being disappeared without due process or legal recourse, the issue of 'a few lawyers sworn to secrecy going over some user queries under the constraints of a judge in an active litigation' is not actually a serious issue. This category of thing happens all the time, and it's uncomfortable for third parties involved, but a millenium of common law has generally put the needs of the courts reaching a fair decision in a case above the needs of unrelated third parties to not be bothered by them. Losing this case would be an incredibly serious issue for OpenAI's business model though, though, which is why it's throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks, and is shouting for sympathy to anyone who wants to listen. I can't say I give a fig about their financial well-being, though.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

mac-attack 1y ago

To me, this is akin to Google saying that they don't want to follow a court-ordered law because it would be a privacy invasion.. I feel like OpenAI framed the issue as a privacy conversation and some news journalist are going along with it without questioning the source and their current privacy policy re: data retention and data sharing affiliates, vendors, etc. It takes 30 seconds to save the privacy policy and upload it to an LLM and ask it questions and it quickly becomes clear that their privacy policy allows them to hold onto data indefinitely as is.

akimbostrawman 1y ago

fighting microsoft to get the illusion of privacy is the modern day fight against windmills

notnullorvoid 1y ago

Even if OpenAI and other LLM providers were prohibited by law not to retain the data (opposite of this forced retention), no one should trust them to do so. If you want to input sensitive data into an LLM, do so locally.

sebastiennight 1y ago
> prohibited by law not to retain the data is the same as forced retention. You've got a double negative here that I think you didn't intend.
- notnullorvoid 1y ago
  Oops, you're correct it was not intended. "prohibited by law from retaining data"

HenryBemis 1y ago

I remember back in the day when I made the mistake to use Facebook and iPhones that a) Facebook never actually deleted anything and b) iMessage was also not deleting (but both were merely hiding). This is why in this part of the world we have GDPR and it would be amazing to see OpenAI receiving penalties for billions of euros, while at the same time a) the EU will receive more money to spend, and b) the US apparatus will grow stronger because it will know everything about everyone (the very few things they didn't already know via the FAANGS. Lately I have been thinking that "they" play chess with our lives, and we sleepwalking to either a Brave New World (for the elites) and/or a 1984/animal farm for the rest. To give a more pleasant analogy, the humans in WALL-E or a darker analogy, the humans in the Matrix.

derwiki 1y ago
CCPA also allows for you to have your data deleted

freejazz 1y ago

"creating mass surveillance program harming all ChatGPT users" is just taking the lawyers' words out of their mouth at face value. Totally ridiculous. And of course its going to lead to extreme skepticism from the crowd here when its put forward that way. Another way to do describe this: "legal discovery process during a lawsuit continues on as it normally would in any other case"

lifeisstillgood 1y ago

We (various human societies) do need to deal with this new ability to surveil every aspect of our lives. There are clear and obvious benefits in the future - medicine, epidemiology will have enormous reservoirs of data to draw on, entire new fields of mass behavioural psychology will come into being (I call it MAssive open online psychology or moop) and we might even find governments able to use minute by minute data of their citizens to you know, provide services to the ones they miss… But all of this assumes a legal framework we can trust - and I don’t think this comes into being piecemeal with judges. My personal take is that data that, without the existence of activity of a natural human, data that woukd not exist or be different must belong to that human - and that it can only be held in trust without explicit payment to that human if the data is used in the best interests of the human (something something criminal notwithstanding) Blathering on a bit I know but I think “in the best interests of the user / citizen is a really high and valuable bar, and also that by default, if my activities create or enable the data,it belongs to me, really forces data companies to think. Be interested in some thoughts

meowkit 1y ago
Zero knowledge proofs + blockchain stream payments + IPFS or similar based storage with encryption and incentive mechanisms. Its still outside the overton window (especially on HN), but the only way that I’ve seen where we can get the benefits of big data and maintain privacy is by locking the data to the user and not aggregating it in all these centralized silos that then are incentivized to build black markets around that data.
- warkdarrior 1y ago
  How do you apply ZKPs to ChatGPT queries?
  - NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
    As far as cryptographic solutions go: what would be ideal is homomorphic encryption, where the server can do the calculations on data it can't decrypt (your query) and send you something back that only you can decrypt. Assuming that's unworkable, we could still have anonymity via cryptocurrency payments for tokens (don't do accounts) + ipfs or tor or similar. You can carry around your query + answer history with you.

tptacek 1y ago

This doesn't seem especially newsworthy. Oral arguments are set for OpenAI itself to oppose the preservation order that has everyone so (understandably) up in arms. Seems unlikely that two motions from random ChatGPT users were going to determine the outcome in advance of that.

gridspy 1y ago
Seems that a judge does not understand the impact of asking company X to "retain all data" and is unwilling to rapidly reconsider. Part of what makes this newsworthy is the impact of the initial ruling.
- tptacek 1y ago
  If HN decided these things, decisions would be a lot quicker and easier to predict.
- DannyBee 1y ago
  Retention orders of this kind are not uncommon and the judge has not ordered it be turned over to anyone until they hear arguments on it. I note with amazement that tons of hn users with zero legal experience, let alone judge experience, are sure its the judge who doesn't understand, not them. Based on what I don't know but they really are sure they get it more than the judge!
  - gridspy 1y ago
    Underlying this issue is that the judicial system (or the patent system, or the political system) is not populated with enough individuals possessing software engineering "common sense." It is highly likely that this is not confined to just software, I'm sure other engineering or complex disciplines feel the same way about their discipline. How do we have experts inform these decisions without falling into the trap of lobbying where the rich control the political and legal sphere? Anyway, I cede you the point that the US law does not match my "common sense" esp around this 3rd party rule mentioned in other comments. It kind of sucks that US "winning the internet" means that even non-US citizens are subject to US law in this regard.

Akranazon 1y ago

> Judge denies creating “mass surveillance program” harming all ChatGPT users What a horribly worded title. A judge rejected the creation of a mass surveillance program? A judge denied that creating a mass surveillance program harms all ChatGPT users? A judge denied that she created a mass surveillance program, and its creation (in the opinion of the columnist) harms all ChatGPT users? The judge's act of denying resulted in the creation of a mass surveillance program? The fact that a judge denied what she did harms all ChatGPT users? (After reading the article, it's apparently the third one.)

elefanten 1y ago
The third one is the only correct way to interpret the title.
- Akranazon 1y ago
  [dead]

xbar 1y ago

"Judge creates mass surveillance program; denies it."

o11c 1y ago
I really wish we had broad laws requiring telling the truth about concrete things (in contracts, by government officials, etc.). But we don't even have any real enforcement even for blatant perjury.

delusional 1y ago

It's crazy how much I hate every single top level take in this thread. Real human beings actual real work is allegedly being abused to commit fraud at a massive scale, robbing those artist of the ability to sustain themselves. Your false perception of intimacy while asking the computer Oracle to write you smut does not trump the fair and just discovery process.

rybosome 1y ago
You clearly have an emotional connection to people that you feel are being harmed by AI, so I’m not going to gaslight you about that. But I will tell you that real humans asking private, real questions of LLMs is also happening, and these two things aren’t related. Many people who don’t have the technical literacy to understand the implications are sending messages with extremely sensitive personal, medical, and financial information. Straw-manning all of these users as tech-savvy, horny IP thieves is ridiculous. I could find your argument more persuasive if you actually considered the privacy needs of the people who had nothing to do with building or perpetuating the systems. EDIT: to be clear I’m not sure what I think the solution should be, as I also understand the need for discovery.
protocolture 1y ago
Yeah nice strawman, but theres been plenty of leaked chats with ChatGPT (just stuff that's been set to public accidentally) that are so obviously "private" in nature that its not funny. Sorry but, humans have a right to privacy beyond your dislike of the services they use.

devmor 1y ago

I find it really strange how many people are outraged or shocked about this. I have to assume that they are all simply ignorant of the fact that this exact same preservation of your data happens in every other service you use constantly other than those that are completely E2EE like signal chats. Gmail is preserving your emails and documents. Your cell provider is preserving your texts and call histories. Reddit is preserving your posts and DMs. Xitter is preserving your posts and DMs. This is not to make a judgement about whether or not this should be considered acceptable, but it is the de facto state of online services.

protocolture 1y ago
>I find it really strange how many people are outraged >This is not to make a judgement about whether or not this should be considered acceptable A person is outraged because they find it unacceptable. This is beyond terms and conditions, OpenAI is being forced to keep data they want to discard for the user. I am shocked that you are shocked, that people are taking a position on this when you suggest you dont take a position on this.
- dwattttt 1y ago
  A person should get out more. They'd probably learn a lot, by the sound of it.
- devmor 1y ago
  Outrage suggests a level of surprise with the anger. This is not surprising at all. When you hand over your data to a 3rd party, you should not expect it to remain private from the government that rules over that party. The entire 21st century has been a constant deluge of learning how much we are all monitored constantly.
9283409232 1y ago
I think you'd be surprised at the amount of people who don't understand this. Go ask a random person on the street or a nontechnical friend you have and see what answer you get.

exq 1y ago

If anyone is under the impression OpenAI isn't saving every character typed into the chats and every bit sent to the API, I would implore them to look at the current board members.

JCharante 1y ago
smh it's not like one of their founders is out there collecting biometrics
- blitzar 1y ago
  collecting eyeballs

keernan 1y ago

After reading the actual Order, it appears the defendants filed an application to the Court expressing concern that plaintiff, OpenAI, was potentially destroying evidence and to prevent a spoliation claim (relief due to destruction of evidence), the Judge Ordered OpenAI to stop destruction of anything (eg to preserve everything). A person not a party to the action then filed an application to intervene in the lawsuit because the Judge's Preservation Order constituted a breach of the terms of his contract with OpenAI regarding his use of OpenAI's product - more specifically that the Intervenor entered into usage of OpenAI's product upon the agreement that OpenAI would not preserve any portion of Intervenor's communication with the OpenAI product. The problem, as I see it, is that the Judge did not address the issue that her Order constituted a breach of Intervenor's contractual interests. That suggests to me that Intervenor did not expressly state that he held contractual rights that the Court's Order was violating. I would think the next step would be to file an Order to Show Cause directly against the Magistrate Judge claiming the Magistrate's Order constitutes an unconstitutional government taking of property without Due Process.

udev4096 1y ago

No judge can block any kind of mass surveillance program which has been ongoing since more than a decade now. This is a joke and completely irrelevant. OpenAI, just like every other corp, is storing as much as they can to profile you and your bits stream

evbogue 1y ago
What we type into the textarea is more valuable than the returned output from the llm.

dramm 1y ago

Your honor, it appears somebody has obtained your Netflix video rental history and has been asking ChatGPT about it.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"However, McSherry warned that "it's only a matter of time before law enforcement and private litigants start going to OpenAI to try to get chat histories/records about users for all sorts of purposes, just as they do already for search histories, social media posts, etc."" If this is a concern, is the the best course of action for McSherry to stop using ChatGPT. We have read this sort of "advice" this countless times in HN comments relating to use of software/websites controlled by so-called "tech" companies. Something like, "If you are concerned about [e.g., privacy, whatever], then do not use it. Most users do not care." Don't use _____. This is a common refrain in HN comment threads. "OpenAI will have a chance to defend panicked users on June 26, when Wang hears oral arguments over the ChatGPT maker's concerns about the preservation order." "Some users appear to be questioning how hard OpenAI will fight. In particular, Hunt is worried that OpenAI may not prioritize defending users' privacy if other concerns-like "financial costs of the case, desire for a quick resolution, and avoiding reputational damage"-are deemed more important, his filing said." "Intervening ChatGPT users had tried to argue that, at minimum, OpenAI should have been required to directly notify users that their deleted and anonymous chats were being retained. Hunt suggested that it would have stopped him from inputting sensitive data sooner." Any OpenAI argument that invokes "user privacy" is only doing so as an attempt to protect OpenAi from potentially incriminating discovery. OpenAI will argue for its own interests.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Correction: If this is a concern, is the best course of action for _Hunt_ to stop using ChatGPT.

casey2 1y ago

OpenAI already saves all chats

chha 1y ago

Even though this doesn't apply to enterprise customers, I'm just waiting for European customers to wake up and realize that ChatGPT isn't compatible with the GDPR today. And if the court suddenly decides that enterprise customers should also be part of the preservation order it'll be a big hit for OpenAI.

sahil_sharma0 1y ago

[dead]