“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.
Comment on Florida woman used Claude as a diary, then Anthropic reported an entry to police
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 23 hours agois 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.
JillyB@beehaw.org 23 hours ago
Eiri@lemmy.ca 23 hours 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.