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

Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 551 posts

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#211

Post by komali2 »

pixl97 wrote: post #192
komali2 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What kind of guarantee do we have this is true? None. And even if it's the nicest goody two shoes company in the history of capitalism, the NSA will have your data and then there'll be a breach and then Russian cyber criminals will have it too. At this point I'm with you on the zero trust: we should be shouting loud and clear to everyone, if you put data into a web browser or app, that data will at some point be so…

I mean you really sell short where your data is going to be taken from. Browsers and apps are just the start, your TV is selling your data. Your car is selling your data. The places you shop are selling your data.

Reading this comment gave me a flash of vertigo as I realized how deep down the rabbit hole of "crazy dude that only pays in cash" I'd fallen.

I don't own a car and only take public transit or bike. I fill my transit card with cash. I buy food in cash from the farmer's morning market. My tv isn't connected to the Internet, it's connected to a raspberry pi which is connected to my home lab running jellyfin and a YouTube archiving software. I de Googled and use an old used phone and foss apps.

It's all happened so gradually I didn't even realize how far I'd gone!

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#212

Post by giancarlostoro »

Aurornis wrote: post #204
giancarlostoro wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you can opt-out it doesn't bother me much. Though it does make me wonder those third party clients that people subscribe to e.g. JetBrains AI, Zed, and others that use Claude and other Anthropic models, do they opt-in for you? Because that would be bad. I would strongly argue that API clients should NEVER be opted in for these sorts of things, and it should be like this industry wide.

That’s also explained. It’s excluded: > They do not apply to services under our Commercial Terms, including Claude for Work, Claude Gov, Claude for Education, or API use, including via third parties such as Amazon Bedrock and Google Cloud’s Vertex AI. I’ll edit my comment above to include this too

Perfect! Thank you. This makes sense, anyone who deviates from this should be shunned if they take API clients and use that data, I think that's the bigger deal breaker, I have a feeling the whole industry quietly agrees / adheres to this, but I would not be surprised if there's some that do not.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#213

Post by Cheer2171 »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #126
sillyfluke wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"US Army appoints Palantir, Meta, OpenAI execs as Lt. Colonels" [0] Well, probably easier than you think. Given that it looks like Palantir is able to control the software and hardware of the new fangled detention centers with immunity, how difficult do you think it is for them to disappear someone without any accountability? It is precisely the blurring of the line between gov and private companies that aid in subve…

Oh I have no doubt those lines are becoming more and more blurred and that certain big companies in key positions are theoretically beyond accountability. But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" So even now it's between: * A company who, if big enough and in a key position, could theoretically do this And * A government who we know for sure have grabbed multiple people off the streets, with…

More like do you trust what's left of the US judicial branch versus the private arbitration company to save you from the excesses of their respective executives.

I'll still take an increasingly stacked US federal court that still has to pay lip service to the constitution over private arbitration hired by the company accountable only to their whims.

What you mentioned has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional, but the administration is ignoring the courts.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#214

Post by const_cast »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #24
bayindirh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trusting companies more than the government always feels strange. It's something I can't grasp.

How many companies can disappear me to El Salvador?

And how much can the US government censor you versus companies?

There's tradeoffs. The government, at least, has to abide by the constitution. Companies don't have to abide by jack shit.

That means infinite censorship, searches and seizures, discrimination, you name it.

We have SOME protection. Very few, but they're there. But if Uber was charging black people 0.50 cents more on average because their pricing model has some biases baked in, would anyone do anything?

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#215

Post by the_other »

I didn't trust them much to begin with, so I generally avoid talking too much personal stuff with Claude. But I had plenty of chats with surface level discussion of topics I'm interested in and some of my relevant experience and history with those topics. So, I have deleted all my chats and am closing my Claude account (as soon as customer services get back to me; somehow the self-serve option is missing for my account, possibly because I once enabled API access).

I'll use Claude with my employer's Copilot account, but was I wasn't putting anything personal there anyway.

Time to learn how to do local models...

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#216

Post by camwest »

pax wrote: post #188
orsorna wrote: post #163

Unfortunate, but frankly I didn't even know about them not training on user data. Actually up until a few months ago I swore I just couldn't use these hosted models (I regularly use local inference but like most my local hardware yields only so much quality). Tech companies, nay many companies, will lie and cheat to squeeze out whatever they can. That includes reneging promises. With data privacy specifically I alway…

So much this. I for one haven't opted out. I feel it's in our best interest to have better models. It would be ideal to be able to opt in/out per thread, but I don't expect most users to pay attention / be bothered with that. In this aspect, it would've been great to give us an incentive – a discount, a donation on our behalf, plant a percent of a tree or just beg / ask nicely, explain what's in it for us. Regarding…

Agreed. I'm happy they're training on my data.

My reasoning: I use AI for development work (Claude Code), and better models = fewer wasted tokens = less compute = less environmental impact. This isn't a privacy issue for work context.

I regularly run concurrent AI tasks for planning, coding, testing - easily hundreds of requests per session. If training on that interaction data helps future models be more efficient and accurate, everyone wins.

The real problem isn't privacy invasion - it's AI velocity dumping cognitive tax on human reviewers. I'd rather have models that learned from real usage patterns and got better at being precise on the first try, instead of confidently verbose slop that wastes reviewer time.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#217

Post by Thorrez »

benterix wrote: post #129
raldi wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“These updates will apply only to new or resumed chats and coding sessions.” https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms

What kind of guarantee do we have this is true? Meta downloaded copyrighted content and trained their models on it, OpenAI did the same. Uber developed Greyball to cheat the officials and break the law. Tesla deletes accident data and reports to the authorities they don't have it. So forgive me I have zero trust in whatever these companies say.

We're having this discussion on an article about Anthropic changing their privacy policy. If you don't believe Anthropic will follow their privacy policy, then a change to the privacy policy should mean nothing to you.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#218

Post by const_cast »

sokoloff wrote: post #75
bayindirh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trusting companies more than the government always feels strange. It's something I can't grasp.

The government has the direct power to imprison me or seize my property if cross them. It seems strange to not be able to grasp the difference in kind here.

And what technology do you think they use to do said imprisonment and seizing?

Why do you think the military and police outsource fucking everything to the private sector? Because there are no rules there.

Wanna make the brown people killer 5000 drone? Sure, go ahead. Wanna make a facial crime recognition system that treats all black faces as essentially the same? Sure, go ahead. Wanna run mass censorship and propaganda campaigns? Sure, go ahead.

The private sector does not abide by the constitution.

Look, stamping out a protest and rolling tanks is hard. Its gonna get on the news, it's gonna be challenged in court, the constitution exists, it's just a whole thing.

Just ask Meta to do it. Probably more effective anyway.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#219

Post by AlecSchueler »

sillyfluke wrote: post #153
AlecSchueler wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I have no doubt those lines are becoming more and more blurred and that certain big companies in key positions are theoretically beyond accountability. But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" So even now it's between: * A company who, if big enough and in a key position, could theoretically do this And * A government who we know for sure have grabbed multiple people off the streets, with…

>But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" The post you were replying to simply said the behavior of this administration made them care more about this issue, not that they trusted companies more than the government. That statement is not even implied in anyway in the comment you responded to? The fact is whereas in the past it would be expected that the government could regulate the brutal a…

The comment I responded to said "Trusting companies more than the government always feels strange. It's something I can't grasp."

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#220

Post by airstrike »

Aurornis wrote: post #202
I_am_tiberius wrote: post #18

In my opinion, training models on user data without their real consent (real consent = e.g. the user must sign a contract or so, so he's definitely aware), should be considered a serious criminal offense.

From the actual source ( https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms ) they’re going to show a pop-up with the terms change. I triggered it now by going to the Privacy settings page and reviewing the new terms. It’s quite clear. It’s easy to opt out. They’re making everyone go through it. It doesn’t reach your threshold of having everyone sign a contract or something, but then again no other online s…

People have T&C and cookie popup fatigue. I almost hit "accept" before noticing the opt out toggle, thinking it was a simple T&C update. This is definitely a fucked up way to set it up, there's no sugar coating it.
Post reply on HN