Remix clone Hacker News

How would this stand up to the "I didn't do it, I probably got hacked!" defense? It's one thing to publish personal conversation, and another to have your conversations aggregated by some LLM (and if they leak plain-text, the "hacked" defense is even more plausible).

▲

echoangle 11 days ago | parent [-]

That’s a separate issue. You might not be able to prove it as the victim, but that doesn’t make it legal.

▲

virgilp 11 days ago | parent [-]

I would say it's a gray area at best/worst. I think the goal of the law is that you shouldn't e.g. take a screenshot of a message someone sent you in confidence/in private, and use it to make fun of, or shame them on a public forum (or whatever else - but a "targeted action").

This scenario however is "I take my personal data an run it through tools to make my life easier" (heck, even backup could fit the bill here). If I'm allowed to do that... am I allowed to do that only with tools that are perfectly secure? Can I send data to the cloud? (subcases: I own the cloud service & hardware/it's a nextcloud instance; I own it, but it's very poorly secured; Proton owns it and their terms of use promise to not disclose it; OpenAI owns it and their terms of use say they can make use of my data)

▲

echoangle 11 days ago | parent [-]

As a non-lawyer:

> am I allowed to do that only with tools that are perfectly secure?

No, actual security doesn't matter at all, but you have to think that they are reasonably secure.

> Can I send data to the cloud?

Yes, if you can expect the data to stay private

> (subcases: I own the cloud service & hardware/it's a nextcloud instance;

Yes

> I own it, but it's very poorly secured;

> Proton owns it and their terms of use promise to not disclose it;

Yes, if Proton is generally considered trustworthy.

> OpenAI owns it and their terms of use say they can make use of my data)

	▲	virgilp 10 days ago \| parent [-]
		Your thesis implies that before using my data I am compelled by law to know very well the terms of use; I think the opposite has happened in practice, especially in Europe the trend is to say that lengthy TOS don't mean that companies can do whatever they want/ just because the end-user clicked "I agree" doesn't automatically make them liable, in the eyes of the law, to know and understand all implications of the TOS. That's undue burden. I guess you can argue that "I should've known that OpenAI will use my conversations if I send them to ChatGPT" but I'm not convinced it'd be crystal clear in court that I'm liable. Like I said.... I think until actually litigated, this is very much a gray area. P.S. The distinction you make between "properly secured" and "improperly secured" nextcloud instance would, again, be a legal nightmare. I guess there could be an example of "criminal negligence" in extreme cases, but given companies get hacked all the time (more often than not with relatively minor consequences), and even Troy Hunt was hacked(https://www.troyhunt.com/a-sneaky-phish-just-grabbed-my-mail...) - I have a hard time believing the average Joe would face legal consequences for failing to secure their own Nexcloud instance.