Live data from Hacker News

Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

openai.com

291–300 of 441 posts

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NB. There is no order to "collect". The order is to preserve what is already being collected and stored in the ordinary course of business https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6... https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...

Why does OpenAI collect and retain for 30 days^1 chats that the user wants to be deleted It was doing this prior to being sued by the NYT and many others OpenAI was collecting chats even when the user asked for deletion, i.e., the user did not want them saved That's why a lawsuit could require OpenAi to issue a hold order, retain these chats for longer and produce them to another party in discovery If OpenAI was not…

I'd trust Sam Altman about as far as I could throw him and there is absolutely no way OpenAI should be having sensitive private conversations with anybody. Sooner or later all that data will end up with Microsoft who can then correlate it with a ton of data they already have from other sources (windows, office online, linkedin, various communications services including 'teams', github and so on).

This is an intelligence service's wet dream.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#292

"The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations." As might any plaintiff. NYT might be the first of many others and the lawsuits may not be limited to copyright claims Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats") What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations By contrast the purpose of NYT's reques…

> The documents requested are not being made public by the plaintiffs

In fact, as far as I understand it, they could not be made public by the plaintiffs even if they wanted to do so, or even if one of their employees decided to leak them.

That's because the plaintiffs themselves never actually see the documents. They will only be seen by the plaintiff's lawyers and any experts hired by those lawyers to analyze them.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#293

I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product. In c…

No doubt. I’m sure NYT sees an opportunity to buy a few more years of life support by pickpocketing the conductor of the AI gravy train. When Sam Altman and the Sulzbergers fight though, as a normal person, my hope is that they destroy each other.

I think the winner are Chinese (and by extension OSS) models as they can ignore copyright. A net win, I think.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#294
post #264
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have been stored at the client, and encrypted before optionally synced back to OpenAI servers in a way that the stored chats can only be read back by the user. Signal illustrates how this is possible. OpenAI made a choice in how the feature was and is implemented.

Signal does End-to-end encryption, so they (Signal) can never read it. The whole point of ChatGPT conversations is so they can be read by the model on the server. Conversations are kept around because they can be picked up and continued at any point (I use this feature frequently). Additionally you can use conversations in their scheduled notification feature, where the conversation is replayed and updates are sent t…

You could definitely do this E2EE.

Models should run in ephemeral containers where data is only processed in RAM. For active conversation a unique and temporary key-pair is generated. Saved chats are encrypted client side and stored encrypted server side. To resume a conversation[0], decrypt client side, establish connection to container, generate new temporary key-pair, and so on. There's more details and nuances but this is very doable.

How Mullvad handles your data, for some inspiration: https://mullvad.net/en/help/no-logging-data-policy

  > Conversations are kept around because they can be picked up and continued at any point (I use this feature frequently).
I'm not sure why this is a problem. There's no requirement that data at rest needs be unencrypted. Nor is there a requirement that those storing the data need to have the keys to decrypt that data. Encrypted storage is a really common thing...

  > Additionally you can use conversations in their scheduled notification feature, where the conversation is replayed and updates are sent to you, all done on the server.
For this we can use the above scenario, or we can use a multi-key setting if you want to ping multiple devices, or you can have data temporarily decrypted. There is still no need to store the data to disk unencrypted or encrypted with keys OAI owns.

Of course, I also don't see OAI pushing the state of Homomorphic Encryption forward either... But there's definitely a lot of research and more than acceptable solutions that allow data to be processed server side while being encrypted for as long as possible and making access to that data incredibly difficult.

Again, dive deep into how Mullvad does it. It is not possible for them to make all their data encrypted, but they make it as close to impossible to get, including by themselves. There doesn't need to be a perfect solution, but there's no real reason these companies couldn't restrict their own access to that data. There's only 2 reasons they are not doing so. Either 1) they just don't care enough about your privacy or 2) they want it for themselves. Considering how OpenAI pushes the "Scale is All You Need" narrative, and "scale" includes "data", I'm far more inclined to believe the reason is option 2.

[0] Remember, this isn't so much a conversation in the conventional sense. The LLMs don't "remember". You send them the entire chat history in each request. In this sense they are Markovian. It's not like they're tuning a model just to you. And even if they were, well we can store weights encrypted too. Doesn't matter if a whole model, LoRA, embeddings, or whatever. That can be encrypted at rest via keys OAI does not have access to.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#295

If OpenAI hadn't used data from the NYT without permission in the first place this wouldn't have happened. That is the root cause of all this. I'm glad the NYT is fighting them. They've infringed the rights of almost every news outlet but someone has to bring this case.

People pretending to own Data that should belong to the commons is the larger issue.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#296

I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product. In c…

I get the feeling, but that's not what this is. NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content. The question they have to answer is "to what extent has this happened?" That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs. That's what discovery, especially in a copyright case, is about. Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store…

>NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content

They shouldnt have any rights to data after its released.

>That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs.

They are causing more damage than anything chatGPT could have caused to NYT. Privacy needs to be held higher than corporate privilege.

>Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store selling illegal copies of books.

Think of it this way, no book should be illegal.

>They can't know how often that's happened and OpenAI has an obvious incentive to simply say "Oh that never happened".

NYT glazers do more to uphold OpenAI as a privacy respecting platform than OpenAI has ever done.

>If this never happens then the amount will be low.

Should be zero, plus compensation to the affected OpenAI users from NYT.

>The user has no right to privacy.

And this needs to be remedied immediately.

>The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages.

And this needs to be remedied immediately.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#298

"The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations." As might any plaintiff. NYT might be the first of many others and the lawsuits may not be limited to copyright claims Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats") What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations By contrast the purpose of NYT's reques…

>Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats")

To train the AI further. Obviously. Simple as.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#299

I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product. In c…

> This would allow them to access millions of user conversations that are unrelated to the case

It feels like the NYT is really fishing for inside information on how GPT is used so they can run statistical analysis and write articles about it. I.E. if they find examples of racism, they can get some great articles about how racism is rampant on GPT or something.

Post reply on HN