Comment on Florida woman used Claude as a diary, then Anthropic reported an entry to police

Eiri@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  She clearly did transmit a threat though, albeit to/via claude.

  source

  • Eiri@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    That’s just the thing. That wasn’t communication intended for anyone to see.

    source

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      is unlawful for any person to send, post, or transmit, or procure the sending, posting, or transmission of, a writing or other record, including an electronic record, in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person […]

      Intent does not seem to be relevant…? It may lessen the punishment but the letter of the law os clearly violated. Whether it’s in the spirit of the law is another thing.

      source

      • Eiri@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Well, the letter of the law is sufficient to get an indictment, but usually the job of a judge is exactly that, to interpret vague legal language and render an unambiguous verdict. So if it’s against the spirit of the law, then logically a judge should rule in favour of the defendant.

        Whether they will is another story, though, as the American legal system has been… Under question regarding partisanship.

        But the defense lawyer will likely seek acquittal because “may be viewed by another person” cannot reasonably include when you’re being spied on against your will. Because then the words “in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person” are completely redundant and useless. A limiting statement that limits nothing.

        Plus, otherwise, all iCloud accounts, all personal backups, etc. that a company is technically capable of viewing is technically up for grabs without a warrant.

        Ruling against the defendant in this case would be WILD as a precedent to set for surveillance etc.

        source
      • JillyB@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        “in which it may be viewed by another person”

        I think any reasonable interpretation of that law wouldn’t include it being viewable only by an employee in a manner that you didn’t know could read it.

        source
    • SarahValentine@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That’s like farting in an elevator then protesting that it wasn’t intended for anyone else to smell.

      source

      • Eiri@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Your argument would make sense if it were a forum or social media post.

        That was a conversation with an AI chatbot. A word generator. Inherently that stuff doesn’t communicate with anyone, and the only reason anyone saw it was that the chatbot company is spying on its users.

        A more reasonable comparison would be if the accused had written down plans to attack a police station in her iCloud-saved notes and Apple had taken a look unprompted and decided to contact the authorities.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      If that’s the case, then why did she send it to the servers at the address pointed to by the domain claude.ai? If it’s not for anyone else to see, don’t send it to somebody else’s computer.

      source