[joshribakoff]

Not an attorney, but its a chat between a non attorney… and well, themselves. It seems no different than a client writing hand written notes. But if they hand wrote a note to… give to their attorney, that seems different (which is how you seem to frame it). I trust that the court articulated clearly, why the defendants “certain notes” were not privileged, however its not surprising that there is nuance. In fact, its no different than how only “certain emails” could be privileged. This also seems like a win for society, if there is some sort of pattern with ai helping with crimes.

[Gregaros]

> This also seems like a win for society, if there is some sort of pattern with ai helping with crimes.

That fails to recognize the tradeoff between freedom and security. Society suffers if we, for instance, lock everyone up, despite the reduction that would have in crimes. The balance between the two cannot be ignored to justify outcomes, though it is American tradition to value liberty over security when the two come in conflict.

[watwut]

> it is American tradition to value liberty over security when the two come in conflict.

It is american tradition to yell slogans about freedom while not favoring it at all.

[salawat]

No. No it isn't a win. We need to grow beyond this stupid anachronistic concept that "just because you speak to a Third Party" there is no expectation of privacy. Humanity works as a result of third-party communication, and I extremely infrequently see Governments cracking open their operational notes to the Public except at great cost, delay, and the ultimate possibility of refusal. In point of fact, the Government taxes us to build out it's capability to not have to do so, but doesn't do a damn thing to ensure anyone else has the same capability.

Until "Good of the goose, good of the gander" is honored in good faith, this is a strict, hypocritical loss.

[tyzoid]

It doesn't even need to be a third party. Documents you make for yourself but never send to a third party could still be seized in a criminal context or subject to discovery in a civil one.

Attorney-client privilege is a special carve out because the courts have recognized that clients need to be open and honest with their attorneys to get proper counsel and representation.

This ruling is the court declining to extend that special carve out to non-lawyer AI tooling, and keeping the status quo of contemporaneous documents made by someone discoverable, whether or not shared with a third party. The judge draws from the TOS as an admonishment, effectively saying (my words, not the judge) the TOS should have put you on notice that you have no expectation this data is confidential.