[mlyle]

? we're talking about autonomous weapons systems. That would be internationally.

Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic.

(But they do not find an issue with international intelligence gathering-- which is a legitimate purpose of national security apparatus).

[isodev]

I don’t think deploying “80% right” tools for mass surveillance (or anything that can remotely impact human life) counts as lawful in any context.

Just because the US currently lacks a functioning legislative branch doesn’t magically make it OK when gaps in the law are reworded into “national security”

[mlyle]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say or assert, so you can put it more clearly.

[Jeremy1026]

One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance.

[mlyle]

> > Secondarily, we're talking about domestic surveillance / law enforcement. That would be domestic.

> One of Anthropic's line in the sand was domestic mass-surveillance.

And?

[janalsncm]

I think the person you are replying to takes issue with the thing which you have simply asserted.

[mlyle]

Which thing? Helping intelligence / international surveillance?

[charcircuit]

>That would be internationally.

No other country should dictate what our military is or is not allowed to do. As they say all is fair in love and war, and if we want to break some international treaty that is our choice to do so. Both are based of domestic decisions of what should be allowed.

[brainwad]

We are talking about US corporations deciding to/not to provide tech to the US government. That's completely orthogonal to your concern.