6 ms·

>So because the lawsuit pertains to copyright, we can ignore possible constitutional issues because it'll make things take longer? What constitutional issues d

>So because the lawsuit pertains to copyright, we can ignore possible constitutional issues because it'll make things take longer? What constitutional issues do you believe are present? > There is no requirement for a lawyer to be utilized. Corporations must be represented by an attorney, by law. So that's not true outright. Second, if someone did file something pro-se, they might get a little leeway. But the business isn't represented pro-se, so why on earth would the judge apply a lower standard appropriate for a pro-se party so a sophisticated law firm, easily one of the largest and best in the country? When you are struggling to reason around really straightforward issues like that, it does not leave me with confidence about your other judgments regarding the issues present here.

paulddraper 1y ago
> What constitutional issues do you believe are present? 4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)
- kopecs 1y ago
  Do you think the 4th amendment enjoins courts from requiring the preservation of records as part of discovery? The court is just requiring OpenAI to maintain records it already maintains and segregate them. Even if one thinks that _is_ a government seizure, which it isn't---See Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921); cf. Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 656 (1980) (discussing the "state agency" requirement)---no search or seizure has even occurred. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records you're sending to OpenAI (you know OpenAI has them!!; See, e.g., Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)) and you don't have any possessory interest in the records. See, e.g., United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).
  - alwa 1y ago
    This would help explain why entities with a “zero data retention” agreement are “not affected,” then, per OpenAI’s statement at the time? Because records aren’t created for those queries in the first place, so there’s nothing to retain?
    - kopecs 1y ago
      AIUI Because if you have a zero data retention agreement you are necessarily not in the class of records at issue (since enterprise customers records are not affected, again AIUI per platinffs' original motion which might be because they don't think they're relevant for market harm or something). So I think that this is more so an artefact of the parameters than an outcome of some mechanism of law.
  - paulddraper 1y ago
    > There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records There is a reasonable expectation that deleted and anonymous chats would not be indefinitely retained. > The court is just requiring OpenAI to maintain records it already maintains and segregate them. Incorrect. The court is requiring OpenAI to maintain records it would have not maintained otherwise. That is the crux of this entire thing.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Litigation holds do not violate the 4th amendment.
    - kelnos 1y ago
      > The court is requiring OpenAI to maintain records it would have not maintained otherwise. Not quite. The court is requiring OpenAPI to maintain records longer than it would otherwise retain them. It's not making them maintain records that they never would have created in the first place (like if a customer of theirs has a zero-retention agreement in place). Legal holds are a thing; you're not going to successfully argue against them on 4A grounds. This might seem like an overly broad legal hold, though, but I'm not sure if there are any rules that prevent that sort of thing.
      - paulddraper 1y ago
        > This might seem like an overly broad legal hold Exactly
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 1y ago
  How? the government is not involved at all in this dispute, neither state or federal.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    So the parties are just like duking it out in a parking lot or something? If the government is not involved, then why does OpenAI even bother listening to the judge?
    - freejazz 1y ago
      This only demonstrates that you do not understand the difference between the executive and judicial branches. It does not demonstrate a good point.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        How so? The comment I was responding to made no such distinction - it merely claimed "the government is not involved". In the US, "government" is generally taken to be anybody acting under the banner of nation/state authority (contrast with say the UK). So the government is most certainly involved here - adjudicating the case and issuing this retention order. (for example, your own comment: the executive and judicial branches [of government])
        freejazz 1y ago
        > How so? The comment I was responding to made no such distinction Should I mention that water is wet every time I mention water? The executive is the executive, the judicial is the judicial. It's inherent in the discussion and pretending otherwise only for the benefit of furthering obtuse points that go nowhere serves the benefit of no one. So you either didn't know, and do now, or you're just cratering the discussion.
        mindslight 1y ago
        I made an obtuse reply to an obtuse wrong assertion. You then baselessly claimed I didn't know about different branches of government. That second bit is what tends to crater conversations. The distinction of the judiciary is most certainly relevant to the actual legal analysis here - the judiciary often reserves sweeping authoritarian powers for themselves, even when they do act to restrain the legislative/executive. So without even really analyzing the details, I am pretty sure that the law as written supports this action. But the comment I was responding to wasn't making a larger more nuanced argument - rather it said that the government was not involved, defining away the actions of the judiciary as somehow not being governmental action, regardless of them being done with the authority of government. The overall analysis is that if people are up in arms about this, it just reinforces the need for some actual privacy laws in this country - both to protect from corporations themselves abusing our data, and in this case to prevent the government from creating overly broad judicial orders that may only target specific companies but end up running roughshod over many individuals' rights. (and just to be clear to avoid going off into the terminology weeds again: the definition of rights I'm using is the one of imagined natural rights, not merely what has been codified into law)
- freejazz 1y ago
  It's a civil case and the gov't is not involved so...
strictnein 1y ago
> When you are struggling to reason around really straightforward issues like that, it does not leave me with confidence about your other judgments regarding the issues present here. Or, perhaps, that's not something known by most. I didn't struggle to understand that, I simply didn't know it. Also, again, the article could have mentioned that, and I started my statement by saying maybe the article was doing a bad job conveying things. > What constitutional issues do you believe are present? This method of interrogation of online comments is always interesting to me. Because you seem to want to move the discussion to that of whether or not the issues are valid, which wasn't what I clearly was discussing. When you are struggling to reason around really straightforward issues like that, it does not leave me with confidence about your other judgments regarding the issues present here.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  Now that you’ve both done it, can we stop with the ad hominem?
- freejazz 1y ago
  Method of interrogation? I'm not a mind reader. If you don't want to make yourself clear, that's fine. If you want to be petty, that's fine as well. >Or, perhaps, that's not something known by most. I didn't struggle to understand that, I simply didn't know it. Sorry you struggled to not understand your own concept that you put forward that because a lawyer isn't required (not true, but granting you this for the sake of this conversation), we shouldn't hold lawyers up to the standard of a lawyer anyway? That's facially silly.
  - strictnein 1y ago
    > If you don't want to make yourself clear, that's fine. If you want to be petty, that's fine as well. I literally just repeated to you what you said to me. But, yeah, I'm the petty one. > Sorry you struggled to not understand your own concept that you put forward that because a lawyer isn't required What? Why are you misinterpreting everything I wrote? > we shouldn't hold lawyers up to the standard of a lawyer anyway? That's facially silly. Where in the world did I say this?
gopher_space 1y ago
I read the ruling(judgment?) first and the fine article second. If I'd just read the article I'd be more confused than this guy. The PDF is easy to read and really lucid once you get past the formatting. Ars should have just converted it to markdown.
- freejazz 1y ago
  Tech coverage of legal stuff is terrible. Ars has zero interest in representing this story in a fair way. They are making controversy for page views.

paulddraper 1y ago

> What constitutional issues do you believe are present? 4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)

kopecs 1y ago
Do you think the 4th amendment enjoins courts from requiring the preservation of records as part of discovery? The court is just requiring OpenAI to maintain records it already maintains and segregate them. Even if one thinks that _is_ a government seizure, which it isn't---See Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921); cf. Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 656 (1980) (discussing the "state agency" requirement)---no search or seizure has even occurred. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records you're sending to OpenAI (you know OpenAI has them!!; See, e.g., Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)) and you don't have any possessory interest in the records. See, e.g., United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).
- alwa 1y ago
  This would help explain why entities with a “zero data retention” agreement are “not affected,” then, per OpenAI’s statement at the time? Because records aren’t created for those queries in the first place, so there’s nothing to retain?
  - kopecs 1y ago
    AIUI Because if you have a zero data retention agreement you are necessarily not in the class of records at issue (since enterprise customers records are not affected, again AIUI per platinffs' original motion which might be because they don't think they're relevant for market harm or something). So I think that this is more so an artefact of the parameters than an outcome of some mechanism of law.
- paulddraper 1y ago
  > There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records There is a reasonable expectation that deleted and anonymous chats would not be indefinitely retained. > The court is just requiring OpenAI to maintain records it already maintains and segregate them. Incorrect. The court is requiring OpenAI to maintain records it would have not maintained otherwise. That is the crux of this entire thing.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Litigation holds do not violate the 4th amendment.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    > The court is requiring OpenAI to maintain records it would have not maintained otherwise. Not quite. The court is requiring OpenAPI to maintain records longer than it would otherwise retain them. It's not making them maintain records that they never would have created in the first place (like if a customer of theirs has a zero-retention agreement in place). Legal holds are a thing; you're not going to successfully argue against them on 4A grounds. This might seem like an overly broad legal hold, though, but I'm not sure if there are any rules that prevent that sort of thing.
    - paulddraper 1y ago
      > This might seem like an overly broad legal hold Exactly
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 1y ago
How? the government is not involved at all in this dispute, neither state or federal.
- mindslight 1y ago
  So the parties are just like duking it out in a parking lot or something? If the government is not involved, then why does OpenAI even bother listening to the judge?
  - freejazz 1y ago
    This only demonstrates that you do not understand the difference between the executive and judicial branches. It does not demonstrate a good point.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      How so? The comment I was responding to made no such distinction - it merely claimed "the government is not involved". In the US, "government" is generally taken to be anybody acting under the banner of nation/state authority (contrast with say the UK). So the government is most certainly involved here - adjudicating the case and issuing this retention order. (for example, your own comment: the executive and judicial branches [of government])
      - freejazz 1y ago
        > How so? The comment I was responding to made no such distinction Should I mention that water is wet every time I mention water? The executive is the executive, the judicial is the judicial. It's inherent in the discussion and pretending otherwise only for the benefit of furthering obtuse points that go nowhere serves the benefit of no one. So you either didn't know, and do now, or you're just cratering the discussion.
        mindslight 1y ago
        I made an obtuse reply to an obtuse wrong assertion. You then baselessly claimed I didn't know about different branches of government. That second bit is what tends to crater conversations. The distinction of the judiciary is most certainly relevant to the actual legal analysis here - the judiciary often reserves sweeping authoritarian powers for themselves, even when they do act to restrain the legislative/executive. So without even really analyzing the details, I am pretty sure that the law as written supports this action. But the comment I was responding to wasn't making a larger more nuanced argument - rather it said that the government was not involved, defining away the actions of the judiciary as somehow not being governmental action, regardless of them being done with the authority of government. The overall analysis is that if people are up in arms about this, it just reinforces the need for some actual privacy laws in this country - both to protect from corporations themselves abusing our data, and in this case to prevent the government from creating overly broad judicial orders that may only target specific companies but end up running roughshod over many individuals' rights. (and just to be clear to avoid going off into the terminology weeds again: the definition of rights I'm using is the one of imagined natural rights, not merely what has been codified into law)
freejazz 1y ago
It's a civil case and the gov't is not involved so...

strictnein 1y ago

> When you are struggling to reason around really straightforward issues like that, it does not leave me with confidence about your other judgments regarding the issues present here. Or, perhaps, that's not something known by most. I didn't struggle to understand that, I simply didn't know it. Also, again, the article could have mentioned that, and I started my statement by saying maybe the article was doing a bad job conveying things. > What constitutional issues do you believe are present? This method of interrogation of online comments is always interesting to me. Because you seem to want to move the discussion to that of whether or not the issues are valid, which wasn't what I clearly was discussing. When you are struggling to reason around really straightforward issues like that, it does not leave me with confidence about your other judgments regarding the issues present here.

Aeolun 1y ago
Now that you’ve both done it, can we stop with the ad hominem?
freejazz 1y ago
Method of interrogation? I'm not a mind reader. If you don't want to make yourself clear, that's fine. If you want to be petty, that's fine as well. >Or, perhaps, that's not something known by most. I didn't struggle to understand that, I simply didn't know it. Sorry you struggled to not understand your own concept that you put forward that because a lawyer isn't required (not true, but granting you this for the sake of this conversation), we shouldn't hold lawyers up to the standard of a lawyer anyway? That's facially silly.
- strictnein 1y ago
  > If you don't want to make yourself clear, that's fine. If you want to be petty, that's fine as well. I literally just repeated to you what you said to me. But, yeah, I'm the petty one. > Sorry you struggled to not understand your own concept that you put forward that because a lawyer isn't required What? Why are you misinterpreting everything I wrote? > we shouldn't hold lawyers up to the standard of a lawyer anyway? That's facially silly. Where in the world did I say this?

gopher_space 1y ago

I read the ruling(judgment?) first and the fine article second. If I'd just read the article I'd be more confused than this guy. The PDF is easy to read and really lucid once you get past the formatting. Ars should have just converted it to markdown.

freejazz 1y ago
Tech coverage of legal stuff is terrible. Ars has zero interest in representing this story in a fair way. They are making controversy for page views.