| mass surveillance is explicitly unlawful in the US. it is in the bill of rights. By definition it is injustice under the law. Even for terrorists in the US they have to go through a FISA court and get warrants. Consider this, the bill of rights stipulates that a soldier cannot be stationed on your property in times of peace, but in times of war it will be allowed. It makes exceptions for times of war. but even in times of war, 4th amendment's search and seizure protection don't have an exception. Even in times of insurrection and rebellion. To deliberately violate that for personal and political reasons, that in itself is treason. With that intent alone, even without action, it invalidates all legitimacy that government has. If a clause in a contract is broken, the contract is broken. The bill of rights is the contract between the people and their government that gives the government its powers to rule, in exchange for those rights. With the contract explicitly, deliberately and with provable malicious intent broken, the whole agreement is invalidated. I'll even say this, the US military itself is on the hook if they stand by and let this happen. |
| |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On the hook for what? The current US government has a fundamentally different ontology for the derivation of human rights. Wheras you and I likely agree that human rights are inalienable due to them being derived from the universe nature of human experience, the administration believes that human rights begin and end with them, the state. When they're the one able to affect the world with violence, it doesn't matter who's on the hook. The US electorate thought they could heal a status wound by authoritarianism instead of therapy and everyone else is paying the price. | | |
| ▲ | notepad0x90 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | On the hook for whatever comes after. Best case scenario, democrats will peacefully take control again, and pretend to forget about Sam's complicity. But he'll still face civil suits, I hope personally as well as the company itself. Wort case, the current admin will make nazis look like cosplayers, and within a decade or so, he'll be standing next other ceos facing a tribunal in front of whatever entity managed to topple the former regime, and it will be under warcrime terms that are yet to be defined and for atrocities, which if history teaches us anything, will be so horrific our current ability to imagine antrocities is insufficient to allows to speculate on their nature. In short, whatever trump does with openai, Sam Altman is in the "whatever trump wants to do was lawful" camp. Even then, perhaps the next regime will fail to learn from history and focus on rebuilding, but if they do learn from history they'll understand that you really can't hold back when it comes to these things. We're in this mess because of failure to sufficiently punish the nazis and the confederates in the US, both of which lasted only for about half a decade by the way. it isn't enough to teach people how horrible nazis and confederates were, the German approach is sensible, but a more extreme approach might be required. Funny thing is, this might just save openai from total collapse. But if this is the price to keeping the economy alive, even at my own personal cost I hope the economy collapses completely along with these companies and regime. | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm so sorry, but the closure of justice will never occur. The United States is incompatible with its existence. As much as a third reconstruction is desperately needed, my desire for its existence is not materially tied to it being rendered into the world. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Nevermark 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I'll even say this, the US military itself is on the hook if they stand by and let this happen. That would most definitely not be the Constitutional recourse. Or a sensible approach. If that happens, the Constitution is past tense. Congress and the Supreme Court are the recourse. If they don't hold up the Constitution then violence or even a non-violent military coup, however well intended, are not going to put the splattered egg back together again. The last two and a half decades have seen all four presidents, congress, the Supreme Court and both parties allow blatantly unconstitutional surveillance become the norm (evolving an adaptive fig leaf of intermediaries), and presidential military actions entirely blur out the required Congressional oversight. That the weakening of loyalty to the Constitution has been pervasive on those serious counts, is one of the reasons it has been so easy to undermine further. When governing bodies become familiar with the convenient practice of "deciding" what the constitution means, without repercussions, that lost respect becomes very hard to reinstate. | | |
| ▲ | notepad0x90 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They swore an oath to defend the constitution of the US against enemies both foreign and domestic. It is entirely lawful for them to fulfill that duty. If the commander in cheif and the civilian administration are clearly and unquestionably violating the constitution, they are no longer legitimate. If they are acting to harm the american people, acting as agents of a foreign enemy or as a domestic enemy to harm the american people, then they are not only illegitimate but the military is oath-bound to fight them with necessary force. > That the weakening of loyalty to the Constitution has been pervasive on those serious counts, is one of the reasons it has been so easy to undermine further. I can agree with that, that is because the people who swore an oath to defend it have not done so. They wave flags like it's a sports team they're cheering for. Ultimately, the design of the constitution is such that either the people taking arms, or a patriotic military resisting the government would serve as the ultimate recourse. The system of checks and balances works so long as consequences are still a thing. If in the 1800s a president decided to do half the things trump did, anyone could shoot his face off and get away with it without consequence. These things aren't practical anymore. The military has the duty to resist unlawful orders. But if a russian agent usurped the US government and civilians are incapable of doing something about it, then that's what they're there for. The military doesn't exist to bomb foreign countries thousands of miles away, it is there to defend the homeland. The original idea was that if laws are no longer a thing (obeyed by the government) the lawlessness would be too terrifying for those in power, therefore lawfulness is in their interest. |
| |
| ▲ | piker 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right, which is probably the point made by the negotiators on behalf of the US Government. "We don't want Anthropic's standard, we want the Constitution." | | |
| ▲ | notepad0x90 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe I'm misunderstanding but are you taking the gov's side? Anthropic's standard was the constitutions. The executive branch has no authorization under US law to perform surveillance of any kind on its own. OpenAI will now be breaking US law, Anthropic simply decided to obey US law. The US government can update its laws and come back to Anthropic, or do what they just did | | |
| ▲ | piker 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, I'm not taking the government's side. I'm telling the government's side. That's probably true that the executive branch can't do those things, but it may be able to do so in the future. Thus, Anthropic's rule would then be inconsistent with the laws applying to the government. > The US government can update its laws and come back to Anthropic No, this I do take issue with. It's the people who update the U.S. government's laws. | | |
| ▲ | notepad0x90 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | the people via their elected reps.. the government. The government is of the people and by the people. They're not different if democracy is truly working. > but it may be able to do so in the future. You don't obey laws in the future, you obey laws today. Companies have an obligation to follow the laws as written today. Not only that, as americans they and all americans have a patriotic and civic duty to resist attempts to bypass or undermine the constitution of their country. You literally can't be patriotic or loyal to your country without doing so, it is what constitutes the country. It's not like Anthropic can't update their guardrails and contracts once the laws of the land are updated. They simply resisted a criminal and treasonous abuse of power. |
|
|
|
|
