5 ms·

OpenAI also literally announced that they send data to law enforcement after a judge told them they had to do so.

by mtillman 11mo ago

swyx 11mo ago
they HAD to? didnt Apple refuse to do this exact thing?
- rogerrogerr 11mo ago
  Apple refused to create new software to allow the FBI to brute force an encrypted device. OpenAI just had this info floating around on hard drives.
  - protocolture 11mo ago
    And then 3 or 4 allies of the US passed laws enabling the government to require companies to develop tools or face prison time. So they probably have developed the tool, and once developed been secretly compelled to use it.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > And then 3 or 4 allies of the US passed laws enabling the government to require companies to develop tools or face prison time My understanding is that Apple’s executives were surprised at the forcefulness of the opposition to their stand together with the meekness of public support. (Having worked on private legislation, I get it. You work on privacy and like two people call their electeds because most people don’t care about privacy, while those who do are predominantly civically nihilists or lazy.)
- lotsofpulp 11mo ago
  If you are referring to the incident below, it is different because the government asked Apple to write software to allow access to the device: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d... If Apple had simply had the text records, they would have had to comply with the government order to provide them.
  - DevelopingElk 11mo ago
    And Apple did provide all iCloud data they had available.
kube-system 11mo ago
Every company must comply with lawful warrants and subpoenas.
- trenchpilgrim 11mo ago
  EDIT: Original parent was "Every company does this." Not Mullvad. Swedish police showed up looking for some dat, Mullvad didn't even collect what they wanted, police left empty handed.
  - kube-system 11mo ago
    Yes -- even Mullvad -- which is precisely why they do not collect the data. Because if they did have the data, they would have to give it over, or they could go to prison.
    - dylan604 11mo ago
      who goes to prison, the whole company? What does Swedish law have of sending corporate employees to prison? Is it something we can import?
      - kube-system 11mo ago
        Typically, courts will summon a specific person to comply with their request, often a corporate officer or director with a role or authority relevant to what is being requested. If they don't comply with their request, they can be held in contempt. The specifics vary by country, but basically all legal systems require you to comply with what they say and impose penalties if you don't. I don't know if there are any countries where it's legal to ignore the courts, but I would imagine that their court systems don't work too well.
      - navigate8310 11mo ago
        Typically that would require uncovering the veil of the corporation and usually a limited company has safety provisions against these egregious acts.

OpenAI also literally announced that they send data to law enforcement after a judge told them they had to do so.

swyx 11mo ago

they HAD to? didnt Apple refuse to do this exact thing?

rogerrogerr 11mo ago
Apple refused to create new software to allow the FBI to brute force an encrypted device. OpenAI just had this info floating around on hard drives.
- protocolture 11mo ago
  And then 3 or 4 allies of the US passed laws enabling the government to require companies to develop tools or face prison time. So they probably have developed the tool, and once developed been secretly compelled to use it.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > And then 3 or 4 allies of the US passed laws enabling the government to require companies to develop tools or face prison time My understanding is that Apple’s executives were surprised at the forcefulness of the opposition to their stand together with the meekness of public support. (Having worked on private legislation, I get it. You work on privacy and like two people call their electeds because most people don’t care about privacy, while those who do are predominantly civically nihilists or lazy.)
lotsofpulp 11mo ago
If you are referring to the incident below, it is different because the government asked Apple to write software to allow access to the device: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d... If Apple had simply had the text records, they would have had to comply with the government order to provide them.
- DevelopingElk 11mo ago
  And Apple did provide all iCloud data they had available.

kube-system 11mo ago

Every company must comply with lawful warrants and subpoenas.

trenchpilgrim 11mo ago
EDIT: Original parent was "Every company does this." Not Mullvad. Swedish police showed up looking for some dat, Mullvad didn't even collect what they wanted, police left empty handed.
- kube-system 11mo ago
  Yes -- even Mullvad -- which is precisely why they do not collect the data. Because if they did have the data, they would have to give it over, or they could go to prison.
  - dylan604 11mo ago
    who goes to prison, the whole company? What does Swedish law have of sending corporate employees to prison? Is it something we can import?
    - kube-system 11mo ago
      Typically, courts will summon a specific person to comply with their request, often a corporate officer or director with a role or authority relevant to what is being requested. If they don't comply with their request, they can be held in contempt. The specifics vary by country, but basically all legal systems require you to comply with what they say and impose penalties if you don't. I don't know if there are any countries where it's legal to ignore the courts, but I would imagine that their court systems don't work too well.
    - navigate8310 11mo ago
      Typically that would require uncovering the veil of the corporation and usually a limited company has safety provisions against these egregious acts.