Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Timwi 378 days ago
Hm, this article is absolutely about a court order that exhibits “[...] almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute”, so I don't get your point. If your point is that OpenAI are contesting it, then that doesn't refute the original point that the legal system allows NYT to issue such a court order in the first place that needs contesting. Ideally the privacy of uninvolved parties would be protected by the legal system, not by OpenAI.
1 comments
JumpCrisscross 377 days ago
> this article is absolutely about a court order that exhibits “[...] almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute”

How? It’s compelling OpenAI retain data they have the contractual right and technical ability to retain. Nothing is being made public, other than the order itself. Nothing is even being transferred to the plaintiff’s legal team. (At some point it will be made available. But both sides will fight over what they have access to, with the court mediating. That’s a lot of regard for third parties’ privacy.)

link
phendrenad2 377 days ago
Right, and let's hope that nothing is transferred. Although the door is probably already too far open for that. The NYT shouldn't have access to user data. My personal data isn't a pawn in their lawsuit. I didn't sign up for that.

I do want to take this opportunity to encourage people to demand compensation from the NYT, if they do somehow get user data. After all, it's YOUR data. If someone uses it without you expressly agreeing to that use in a EULA, they are effectively engaging in piracy of your intellectual property, and you should be able to get damages. And if a judge approved it? Sue the judge, too. Hell, that's what the world has come to isn't it? The legal system is a big war between corporations and we, the people, are just carried on the wind.

(I am not a lawyer, but whatever the equivalent of a "lawyer" is in the court of public opinion, I think I'm slowly becoming one out of necessity)

link
Timwi 376 days ago
> It’s compelling OpenAI retain data they have the contractual right and technical ability to retain.

You were so close. It’s compelling OpenAI to retain data they also have the right and technical ability to delete. It removes OpenAI’s ability to protect privacy if they wanted to.

link
JumpCrisscross 376 days ago
> It removes OpenAI’s ability to protect privacy if they wanted to

It does not in any capacity prevent OpenAI from transferring everyone, globally, to zero data retention. This entire story is OpenAI trying to deflect the cost of its own decisions to the judiciary. Which is particularly shameful given the partisan attacks our courts are currently facing.

link