4 ms·
> The Times argued that people who delete their ChatGPT conversations are more likely to have committed copyright infringement. And as Stein put it in the heari
by pu_pe 1y ago
> The Times argued that people who delete their ChatGPT conversations are more likely to have committed copyright infringement. And as Stein put it in the hearing, it’s simple “logic” that “[i]f you think you’re doing something wrong, you’re going to want that to be deleted.”
My most generous guess here is that the NYT is accusing OpenAI of deleting infringing user chats themselves, because the implication that someone would delete their history due to fear of copyright infringement is completely stupid.
- shakna 1y agoIt seems like an obvious take here. They were asked to preserve their logs, to prevent them from deleting incriminating information. Which is... Par for the course. But OpenAI are desperately trying to spin it that the logs should not be allowed into evidence.
- senko 1y ago"Logs" sounds innocous, "private data" appearing in those chats is much worse. As a citizen of an EU country, I do not view trampling on my rights, directly violating my country's laws and reneging on published privacy policy (all of which OpenAI is being forced to in this case by keeping the data) to be "par for the course".
- shakna 1y ago"Logs" is what is in the order. If OpenAI have already been violating your rights, by putting private information into the logs, then your beef is with them, not the courts for preserving data. > Accordingly, OpenAI is NOW DIRECTED to preserve and segregate all output log data that would otherwise be deleted on a going forward basis until further order of the Court (in essence, the output log data that OpenAI has been destroying), whether such data might be deleted at a user’s request or because of “numerous privacy laws and regulations” that might require OpenAI to do so. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396.551.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.64...
- senko 1y ago> that would otherwise be deleted This is important. OpenAI was already deleting the data (as per their policies), now they can't. As an insult to injury, the paragraph you quoted also gives a fat middle finger to GDPR.
- shakna 1y agoIt really doesn't. a) GDPR has an exemption for court orders. Which this is. (All court orders are legitimate reason). b) GDPR says you can't log private data. Which they were. (You can only log legitimate interests, contractual obligations, legal compliance, or consent.) Again - this is logs, this is not your average user data. This is not their database. This is not the historical chats of their users. This is just... The... Access... Logs.
- phoronixrly 1y agoNeed I remind you that the GDPR has an exemption for criminal prosecution?
- rocqua 1y agoThis is a civil matter, is it not? This is the NYT suing OpenAI, which is not a criminal matter.
- shakna 1y agoArticle 6 does not differentiate between civil and criminal. > Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies: > ... > processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller; https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/