Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 262 posts

Re: Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

#41

Post by [deleted] »

mmoustafa wrote: post #12
0x3f wrote: post #8

Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".

The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.

[deleted]

Re: Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

#42

Post by why_only_15 »

0x3f wrote: post #27
why_only_15 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not really possible. My guess is that the government is not willing to spend the necessary quantity of money to get e.g. Amazon or Google to divest of Anthropic and stop providing them computing resources.

I believe Palantir are the only ones providing gov with Claude access

The point is that if DoD's supply chain restriction does what Hegseth seems to want, all contractors involved with Anthropic would have to divest. That includes Amazon and Google, who are both DoD contractors who provide massive quantities of capital and compute to Anthropic. It's irrelevant that Anthropic provides Claude through Palantir.

Re: Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

#43

Post by verdverm »

mmoustafa wrote: post #12
0x3f wrote: post #8

Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality. If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".

The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.

There are multiple designations, any part of government, defense applications, not allowed.

For example, in certain outcomes, Anthropic may not be used by the Pentagon, but still be used by the IRS.

Re: Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

#44

Post by Dylan16807 »

charcircuit wrote: post #9

What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk?

Is this question supposed to have anything to do with the situation at hand, where what they did was refuse to perform certain categories of service?

Re: Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

#45

Post by verdverm »

charcircuit wrote: post #9

What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk?

The "mark" was capricious and vindictive. That's at the heart of why it was injuncted.

Re: Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

#46

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Waterluvian wrote: post #21
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree with the idea that a court not allowing the Secretary of Defense to bankrupt a company for disagreeing with him means it's wrong to be alarmed that he tried. It remains extraordinarily alarming that the guy who runs the US military thinks anyone who tries to stop him from doing what he'd like is a threat.

I think the verdict has been in for years now that there is nothing that Americans will mobilize against if it’s only the principles of freedom and liberty on the line. I think it will take being poked with a rather large stick to see some movement. Crippling the economy might be that stick. Unfortunately we all get to suffer their idiocracy.

As I've told people in the past, what you have to understand is that the First Amendment gives Americans wide latitude to mobilize in ways which don't code as mobilization. There's a nationwide protest scheduled for Saturday based on the premise that Trump is a tyrant and we the people won't let him do what he wants. But it's legal and common for people to say that; indeed, it's even legal to say (and I do say) that Trump should be overthrown. So what would be "mobilization" in a lot of places is just another weekend.

Re: Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

#48

Post by nickysielicki »

paulpauper wrote: post #5

So much for all that alarmism a month ago. Just got to be patient and wait for cooler heads to prevail. Or it goes to show how Anthropic handled it well, by making their case as persuasively and assertively without delay as they had done.

This is entirely procedural. This preliminary injunction does not take effect for a week (eg: the order does not take effect for another week and the ban stays in place in the interim), which is done precisely to give the DoD the time to appeal to a higher court, whereupon this preliminary injunction order will very likely be reversed/blocked until the lower court has time to rule on the merits.

It’s not really unexpected.

Re: Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

#49

Post by salawat »

charcircuit wrote: post #9

What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk?

To act as a safety valve against foreign companies acting as proxies for an adversary. Not for use against an American company that won't let you retroactively violate already agreed to terms. Anthropic isn't jeopardizing the supply chain, they simply will not let the Government force them into providing services they otherwise wouldn't.
Post reply on HN