[ianks]

This ruling is unbelievably dystopian for anyone that values a right to privacy. I understand that the logs will be useful in the occasional conviction, but storing a log of people’s most personal communications is absolutely not a just trade.

To protect their users from the this massive overreach, OpenAI should defy this order and eat the fines IMO.

[imiric]

This is a moot issue. OpenAI and all AI service providers already use all user-provided data for improving their models, and it's only a matter of time until they start selling it to advertisers, if they don't already. Whether or not they actually delete chat conversations is irrelevant.

Anyone concerned about their privacy wouldn't use these services to begin with. The fact they are so popular is indicative that most people value the service over their privacy, or simply don't care.

[wongarsu]

Plenty of service providers (including OpenAI) offer you the option to kindly ask them not to, and will even contractually agree not to use or sell your data if you want such an agreement.

Yes, they want to use everyone's data. But they also want everyone as a customer, and they can't have both at once. Offering people an opt-out is a popular middle-ground because the vast majority of people don't care about it, and those that do care are appeased

[malwrar]

They will do it when they need the money and/or feel they have the leverage for precisely the same reason that 99% of people won’t care. It’s better to assume they’re just sitting on your data and waiting until they can get away with using it.

[imiric]

That's nice. How can a user verify whether they fully comply with those contracts?

They have every incentive not to, and no oversight to hold them accountable if they don't. Do you really want to trust your data is safe based on a pinky promise from a company?

[grumpyinfosec]

You sue them and win damages? Courts tend to uphold contracts at face value.

[thewebguyd]

> The fact they are so popular is indicative that most people value the service over their privacy, or simply don't care.

Or, the general populace just doesn't understand the actual implications. The HN crowd can be guilty of severely overestimating the average person's tech literacy, and especially their understanding of privacy policies and ToS. Many may think they are OK with it, but I'd argue it's because they don't understand the potential real-world consequences of such privacy violations.

[imiric]

> Or, the general populace just doesn't understand the actual implications.

That might've been the case in the first generations of ad-supported business models on the web. But after two decades, even non-technical users have understood the implications of "free" services.

IME talking to non-technical people about this topic, I can't remember the last time someone mentioned not being aware of the ToS and privacy policies they agree to, even if they likely hadn't read the legalese. Whereas the most common excuses I've heard are "I have nothing to hide", and "I don't use it often".

So I think you're underestimating the average person's tech literacy. I'm sure people who who still don't understand the implications exist, but they're in the minority.

[yard2010]

It's almost rigged. Either they are keeping the data (and ofc making money out of it) or deleting it destroying the evidence of the crimes they're committing..

[romanovcode]

This has nothing to do with convictions of criminals but everything with CIA gathering profiles every single person they can.