4 ms·

OpenAI is the actual counterparty here though and not a third party. Presumably their contracts with their users are still enforceable. Furthermore, if the thi

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.
      - freejazz 1y ago
        It's a routine discovery hearing regarding documents that OpenAI creates and keeps for a period of time in the normal practice of its business.
mrweasel 1y ago
They probably do already, but won't this ruling force OpenAI to operate separate services for the US and EU? The US users must accept that their logs are stored indefinitely, while an EU user is entitled to have theirs delete.

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.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      It's a routine discovery hearing regarding documents that OpenAI creates and keeps for a period of time in the normal practice of its business.

mrweasel 1y ago

They probably do already, but won't this ruling force OpenAI to operate separate services for the US and EU? The US users must accept that their logs are stored indefinitely, while an EU user is entitled to have theirs delete.