[rickard]

As another commenter noted, I don’t trust NYT’s lawyers with my chats any less than OpenAI, but spreading private data should be limited as far as possible.

I just cancelled my NYT subscription because of their actions, detailing the reason for doing so. It’s a very small action, but the best I can do right now.

[gaws]

> spreading private data should be limited as far as possible.

The NYT making the logs public is extremely unlikely.

[tzs]

...especially since no NYT employees will even see them. They will only be seen by outside lawyers the Times contracts with to handle the litigation, and maybe some outside experts those lawyers hire.

The people who do see them won't even describe anything they see in them to Times employees. Times employees won't see much more than what you or I will be able to see by reading public court filings and attending hearings and the trial (if it gets that far) in person.

Courts have been dealing with highly confidential and sensitive information in discovery for decades (the present system used in federal litigation has been around since 1938) and take care to limit access.