[scarab92]

Is it not valid to be concerned about overly broad invasions of privacy regardless of how long such orders have been occurring?

[Retric]

What privacy specifically? The courts have always been able to compel people to recount things they know which could include a conversation between you and your plumber if it was somehow related to a case.

The company records and uses this stuff internally, retention is about keeping information accurate and accessible.

Lawsuits allow in a limited context the sharing of non public information held by individuals/companies in the lawsuit. But once you submit something to OpenAI it’s now there information not just your information.

[nickff]

I think that some of the people here dislike (or are alarmed by) the way that the court can compel parties to retain data which would otherwise have vanished into the ether.

[dragonwriter]

Its not an “invasion of privacy” for a company who already had data to be prohibited from destroying it when they are sued in a case where that data is evidence.

[dogleash]

Yeah, sure. But understanding the legal system tells us the players and what systems exist that we might be mad at.

For me, one company obligated to retain business records during civil litigation against another company, reviewed within the normal discovery process is tolerable. Considering the alternative is lawlessness. I'm fine with it.

Companies that make business records out of invading privacy? They, IMO, deserve the fury of 1000 suns.

[lovich]

It’s not private. You handed over the data to a third party.

[rodgerd]

If you cared about your privacy, why are you handing all this stuff to Sam Altman? Did he represent that OpenAI would be privacy-preserving? Have they taken any technical steps to avoid this scenario?