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

391–400 of 551 posts

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#391

Post by calmbonsai »

ljosifov wrote: post #350

Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever w…

I don't think you understand how...humanity works?! Is this deliberate parody?

Abuse of medical data is just the tip of the iceberg here and, at least in the states, privatized healthcare presents all sorts of for-profit pricing abuse scenarios let alone nasty scenarios for social coercion.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#392

Post by ethagnawl »

const_cast wrote: post #190
lewdwig wrote: post #19

TBH I’m surprised it’s taken them this long to change their mind on this, because I find it incredibly frustrating to know that current gen agentic coding systems are incapable of actually learning anything from their interactions with me - especially when they make the same stupid mistakes over and over.

Okay they're not going to be learning in real time. Its not like you're getting your data stolen and then getting something out of it - you're not. What you're talking about is context. Data gathered for training still has to be used in training, i.e. a new model that, presumably, takes months to develop and train. Not to mention your drop-in-the-bucket contribution will have next to no influence in the next model. I…

> Not to mention your drop-in-the-bucket contribution will have next to no influence in the next model. It won't catch things specific to YOUR workflow, just common stuff across many users.

I wonder about this. In the future, if I correct Claude when it makes fundamental mistakes about some topic like an exotic programming language, wouldn't those corrections be very valuable? It seems like it should consider the signal to noise ratio in these cases (where there are few external resources for it to mine) to be quite high and factor that in during its next training cycle.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#393

Post by 34679 »

It has a toggle for opting out, but the buttons available are "Accept" and "Not Now". So, if I toggle off but click "Accept", does that accept what I toggled or accept data sharing? If I click "Not Now", do they leave it set at the default Opt-in?

I hate this shit and I'm cancelling now.

https://imgur.com/a/oCw5eEp

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#394

Post by soiltype »

ceroxylon wrote: post #361
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I missing something? I think you do: According to the article https://www.perplexity.ai/page/anthropic-reverses-privacy-st... "Enterprise and educational customers will continue operating under their existing privacy protections, as the policy changes specifically exclude Claude for Work and Claude for Education services. These commercial accounts remain governed by separate contractual agreements that maintain…

> With this new decision, Anthropic makes this "free-riding" less attractive Certainly not for any users like you and me, it takes two seconds and three clicks to review the new terms and decline chat training. This is more like Anthropic getting easy training from people who are unaware or don't care.

Seems the same thing. They're giving plausible deniability, but knowing they'll still scoop up a worthwhile amount of data/profit from some % of users.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#396

Post by grim_io »

homeless_engi wrote: post #224
grim_io wrote: post #116

Opt-in would be much better, of course. To put it in perspective: google won't even give you an option to opt out. If you pay for Gemini as a private user and not as a corporation, you are fair game for google. Now, neither option is good. But one is still much worse.

Gemini allows you to opt out, but disables chat history if you do so

Can I trouble you to give me a hint where this could be configured? :)

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#397

Post by nicce »

ethagnawl wrote: post #353
troad wrote: post #8

You can opt out, but the fact that it's opt-in by default and made to look like a simple T/C update prompt leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The five year retention period seems... excessive. I wonder if they've buried anything else objectionable in the new terms. It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.

I wonder what happens if I don't accept the new T&C? I've been successfully dismissing an updated T&C prompt in a popular group messaging application for years -- I lack the time and legal acumen to process it -- without issue. Also, for others who want to opt-out, the toggle is in the T&C modal itself.

I tried to do that with WhatsApp and it eventually stopped working.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#398

Post by 827a »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #334
superposeur wrote: post #308

Everyone seems to be unsurprised by this move, but I’m genuinely shocked. What a shoot your own foot business decision. Google, evil though it be, doesn’t post the text of your gmails in its search results because who would consider using Gmail after that? This is the llm equivalent. Am I missing something?

> Am I missing something? I think you do: According to the article https://www.perplexity.ai/page/anthropic-reverses-privacy-st... "Enterprise and educational customers will continue operating under their existing privacy protections, as the policy changes specifically exclude Claude for Work and Claude for Education services. These commercial accounts remain governed by separate contractual agreements that maintain…

Gmail is free. It would still be incredibly bad for Gmail to start publishing the content of free users' emails to Google search.

But also, Anthropic has said that this new policy also applies to their Pro ($20/mo) and Max ($200/mo) plans. So its not free versus not free.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#399

Post by 12ian34 »

londons_explore wrote: post #374
12ian34 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not remotely worried about leaks, hacks, or sinister usage of your data?

I would far prefer the service use my data to work better and take a few privacy risks. People die all the time from cancer or car accidents. People very rarely die from data leaks. Some countries like Sweden make people's private financial data public information - and yet their people seem happier than ever. Perhaps privacy isn't as important as we think for a good society.

Sweden is a very poor example, all that is public is personal taxable income. That's it. You're comparing apples to oranges. And how is your home address, and AI chatbot history going to cure cancer?

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#400

Post by ljosifov »

12ian34 wrote: post #356
ljosifov wrote: post #350

Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever w…

not remotely worried about leaks, hacks, or sinister usage of your data?

If they leaked bank accounts numbers, or private keys - I would be worried. That has not happened in the past.

About myself personally - my Name Surname is googleable, I'm on the open electoral register, so my address is not a secret, my company information is also open in the companies register, I have a a personal website I have put up willingly and share information about myself there. Training models on my data doesn't seem riskier than that.

Yeah, I know I'd be safer if I was completely dark, opaque to the world. I like the openness though. I also think my life has been enriched in infinitely many ways by people sharing parts of their lives via their data with me. So it would be mildly sociopathic of me, if I didn't do similar back to the world, to some extent.

Post reply on HN