Preferences

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
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
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
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
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.

This item has no comments currently.