[HN Gopher] Judge denies creating "mass surveillance program" ha...
___________________________________________________________________
Judge denies creating "mass surveillance program" harming all
ChatGPT users
Author : merksittich
Score : 156 points
Date : 2025-06-23 18:18 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| merksittich wrote:
| Previous discussion:
|
| OpenAI slams court order to save all ChatGPT logs, including
| deleted chats
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44185913
| aydyn wrote:
| The judge is clearly not caring about this issue so arguing
| before her seems pointless. What is the recourse for OpenAI and
| users?
| Analemma_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| 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 naive 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| mrweasel wrote:
| 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.
| like_any_other wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| comex wrote:
| 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=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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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?
| mvdtnz wrote:
| "OpenAI user" is not an inherent trait. Just use another
| product, make it OpenAI's problem.
| dylan604 wrote:
| appealing whatever ruling this judge makes?
| otterley wrote:
| You can't appeal a case you're not a party to.
| baobun wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >"What is the recourse for OpenAI and users?"
|
| Start using services of countries who are unlikely to submit
| data to the US.
| freejazz wrote:
| 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.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| ""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_ wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > ... 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.... 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The judge went further to say the arguments weren't sound,
| either.
| Aeolun wrote:
| They went further and said _they_ didn't find the
| arguments sound.
|
| Personally I find it really hard to see anything sound in
| the initial order.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| That appears to be the case to me too. There are so many
| similar services that people use that could fall victim to this
| same issue of privacy . We should have extremely strong privacy
| laws preventing this, somehow blocking over-broad court orders.
| And we don't. Imagine these case:
|
| 1. a court order that a dating service saves off all chats and
| messages between people connecting on the service (instead of
| just saving off say the chats from a suspected abuser)
|
| 2. saving all text messages going through a cell phone company
|
| 3. how about saving all google docs? Probably billions of these
| a day are being created.
|
| 4. And how has the govt not tried to put out a legal request
| that signal add backdoors and save all text messages (because
| there will no doubt be nefarious users like our own secretary
| of defense). I think it would take a very significant reason to
| succeed against a private organization like signal.
|
| The power and reach of this makes me wonder if the US govt
| already has been doing this to normal commercial services
| (outside of phone calls and texting). I recall reading back in
| the day they were "tapping" / legally accessing through some
| security laws phone company trunks. And then we learned about
| tapping google communications from Edward Snowden.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "saving off"?
|
| this is a strange turn of phrase
| salawat wrote:
| >2. saving all text messages going through a cell phone
| company
|
| Point of order, phone companies _already do that_. Third
| Party Doctrine. I don 't believe they _should_ , but as of
| right now, that's where we're at.
| delusional wrote:
| > We should have extremely strong privacy laws preventing
| this, somehow blocking over-broad court orders
|
| Quick question. Should your percieved "right to privacy"
| supersede all other laws?
|
| To extrapolate into the real world. Should it be impossible
| for the police to measure the speed of your vehicle to
| protect your privacy? Should cameras in stores be unable to
| record you stealing for fear of violating your privacy?
| gridspy wrote:
| Your two examples don't map to the concern about data
| privacy.
|
| Speed cameras only operate on public roads. The camera in
| the store is operated by the store owner. In both cases one
| of the parties involved in the transaction (driving,
| purchasing) is involved in enforcement. It is clear in both
| cases that these measures protect everyone and they have
| clear limits also.
|
| Better examples would be police searching your home all the
| time, whenever they want (This maps to device encryption).
|
| Or store owners surveilling competing stores / forcing
| people to wear cameras 24/7 "to improve the customer
| experience" (This maps to what Facebook / Google try to do,
| or what internet wire tapping does).
| andyferris wrote:
| I think there's an idea akin to Europe's "right to be
| forgotten" here.
|
| We can all observe the world in the moment. Police can
| obtain warrants to wiretap (or the digitial equivalent)
| suspects in real-time. That's fine!
|
| The objection is that we are ending up with laws and
| rulings that require a recording of history of everyone by
| everyone - just so the police can have the convenience of
| trawling through data everyone reasonably felt was private
| and shouldn't exist except transiently? Not to mention that
| perhaps the state should pay for all this commercially
| unnecessary storage? Our digital laws are so out-of-touch
| with the police powers voters actually consented to - that
| mail (physical post) and phone calls shall not be in
| intercepted except under probable cause (of a particular
| suspect performing a specific crime) and a judge's consent.
| Just carry that concept forward.
|
| On a technical level, I feel a "perfect forward secrecy"
| technique should be sufficient for implementers. A warrant
| should have a causal (and pinpoint) effect on what is
| collected by providers. Of course we can also subpoena
| information that everyone reasonably expected was recorded
| (i.e. not transient and private). This matches the
| "physical reality" of yesteryear - the police can't execute
| a warrant for an unrecoreded person-to-person conversation
| that happened two weeks ago; you need to kindly ask one of
| the conversents (who have their own rights to privacy /
| silence, are forgetful, and can always "plead the 5th").
| freejazz wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| > What constitutional issues do you believe are present?
|
| 4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)
| kopecs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| strictnein wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Now that you've both done it, can we stop with the ad
| hominem?
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| Is there any proof that ChatGPT was deleting chats? I would think
| they would keep them to use as training data.
| colkassad wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| As long as you are in the eu GDPR gives you the right to be
| forgotten.
| derwiki wrote:
| Or CCPA in California
| acka wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| akimbostrawman wrote:
| the only "conspiracy" here is acting like ignoring privacy
| laws and toggles is not the default for these corporation and
| has been for over a decade.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| 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...
| freejazz wrote:
| I don't think a routine application of 3rd party doctrine
| should sink a magistrate judge.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| 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.
| cvoss wrote:
| Not sure why scare quotes are warranted here. Your so-called
| '"judge"' is, in fact, a judge.
|
| https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-federal-...
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| Magistrate judges are more variable, not subject to Senate
| confirmation, do not serve for life, render decisions that
| very often are different in character from those of regular
| judges-- focusing more on "trees" than "forest". Without
| consent, their scope of duties is limited and they cannot
| simply swap in for a district judge. They actually are
| supervised by a district judge, and appeals, as it were, are
| directed to that officer not an appellate court.
|
| In a nutshell, I used quotes to indicate how the position was
| described by the article. These judidical officers are not
| interchangeable with judges in the federal system, and in my
| experience this distinction is relevant to both why this
| person issued the kind of decision they did, and what it
| means for confidence in the US justice system.
| mac-attack wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| fighting microsoft to get the illusion of privacy is the modern
| day fight against windmills
| notnullorvoid wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| CCPA also allows for you to have your data deleted
| freejazz wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| How do you apply ZKPs to ChatGPT queries?
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Akranazon wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| The third one is the only correct way to interpret the title.
| xbar wrote:
| "Judge creates mass surveillance program; denies it."
| o11c wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| devmor wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-23 23:00 UTC)