Can I just ask, if you were trying to defend her in court (I am assuming you aren’t a lawyer, but that you have an argument for why what she did shouldn’t be considered a criminal offense under this law) what defense would you mount for her?
Hilariously I apparently am big into adheasivly mounting things and also buying batteries. Nothing about my buttocks, sadly.
Oh. And I prefer Anker chargers.
Look at this another way. People intend to do one thing and do something else entirely all the time. They’re fallible. They make mistakes. The fact that it is a mistake doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences. The law is poorly written (the transmission part in particular should involve knowingly transmitting that threat where a human could be expected to read it) but she did pretty much exactly what the law says is illegal (assuming that the evidence against her is credible which would need to be investigated and proven).
If you have a written diary and you happen to have the cleaner find it and read it and they report you to the proper authorities for it, your intent wasn’t to have it read, but the actuality is that it happened.
A threat you mumble to yourself out loud under your breath is heard without your knowledge? It’s still a threat and can be reported as such. You can still be prosecuted for it.
Legal Compliance. We may comply with governmental, court, and law enforcement requests or requirements relating to provision or use of the Services, or to information provided to or collected under our Terms. We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to report information from or about you, including but not limited to Inputs, Outputs, or Actions to law enforcement.
Anthropic’s Safeguards Team will implement detection and monitoring to enforce our Usage Policy, so please review this policy carefully before using our products or services. If we learn that you have violated our Usage Policy, we may throttle, suspend, or terminate your access to our products and services. We may also block or modify model outputs when inputs violate our Usage Policy.
In addition to training our language models to refuse harmful requests, we also use dedicated Trust and Safety enforcement systems to detect, block, and take action on activity that might violate our Usage Policy. Clio supplements this work to help us understand where there might be opportunities to improve and strengthen these systems.
We implement strict privacy access controls when it comes to who can use Clio to further enforce our policies because it may require review of individual accounts. Our Trust and Safety team is able to review topic clusters for areas that indicate likely violations of our Usage Policy.
https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms
Someone else (another user) has made a claim that she told Claude she had bought a weapon and that [police department] were on their “last chance”. It was this particular set of statements that caused Anthropic to call the police.
My body is ready. My body is willing.
https://vger.to/lemmy.world/comment/26171736
This is a link to my original comment on the subject. I did not say what you think I said in the comment you replied to or the original comment I linked. Her ignorance doesn’t absolve her of her actions or the consequences. Intent does matter to some extent but there have also been a lot of news reports about how data you share with corporate LLM’S isn’t private and so then the question becomes should she have known and not just if she did or didn’t know.
If someone else steals something and sells it to you or gifts it to you and you had no knowledge that it was stolen you can still be prosecuted under the law for receiving stolen goods. Your intent in the matter should be considered because there is a difference between knowingly receiving something you know is stolen and not reporting it, and just getting something without knowing it’s legal provenance and not reporting it. But you can still be charged either way.
In this case though an attempt was made to notify the user that her chats were not private in a EULA or TOS. They changed that TOS relatively recently (something like a year ago I think). At that time it looks like users would have been required to agree to an updated TOS with specific verbage about the sharing of chats that doesn’t look like it would have required users to read the entire TOS, just the agree popup. I linked the article for that below because while that was for allowing AI to train on user data, it should have been a clue that the chats were not private.
https://www.bgr.com/1953473/anthropic-train-claude-chats-how-opt-out/
https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms
She did transmit such a threat though. Which is against the law quoted in the article.
The article very much states that it is in fact illegal to write down a threat under Florida law.
I think this is a combination of the law being poorly written and the woman in question making a significantly questionable decision. Her actions have consequences (even if I think that law is problematic at best). There’s no reason for her to have had an expectation that Claude chats would be private (we’ve had repeated news reports that prove otherwise).
Yeah, I’d wager that is what the case will hinge on. She wasn’t aware anyone could view it. Otherwise it’s incredibly unlikely that she would have made such a statement to Claude at all.
On the other hand though, I’m sure Claude’s parent company and the prosecution will argue that she didn’t have an expectation of privacy where this statement is concerned (given TOS/EULA, in combination with the number of news articles/reports on the subject).
Annoying and potentially expensive. The thing about region locks is, sometimes games were market specific. So the game only had one or two region variants available at all. As a result, you’d have to buy a region specific system to play them. I also seem to recall the possibility of bricking a system or disk/cartridge when putting it in the wrong region system so there’s that. From a collection standpoint, if you only wanted to buy the systems and games and not play them, it was probably expensive but fine. Import fees and scarcity of special edition consoles may possibly have been extra pain points in the event that you had to have that region specific variant of a game or console.
Where did you get this idea? EV’s go through brakes and tires faster than their ICE equivalents because of the extra vehicle weight.
And the necklace. And the ring.
Sony already had that happen once. A dog mangled its owners controller and racked up a whole $8 in charges. Possibly more but that’s all I could find in the article.
On the plus side now your kid won’t have to beg you for VBucks or whatever. /s
Weird. I can’t spell. But I also can’t remember how many times I edited this. Didn’t know that Lemmy re-notified people when a comment had been edited. Good to know I guess.
I hope so, but at the same time, his base is full of people who’ve been voting along the party line their whole lives.
Does it send you a new message every time I update a comment?
I was not talking to you.
Border Agents are ICE.
Where would she have gotten the idea that the chat was impossible to read? I’m asking an honest question here, this isn’t a gotcha.