Isn’t it actually quite fair that if you are not compliant with whatever the government wants you to do you will be supplying chain risk?

For example from history we know that Schindler from Schindler's List was indeed a supply chain risk. He harbored persecuted people, he took and sabotaged government contracts. He did the moral but anti-government and illegal things. He was corrupt traitor from governments perspective.

The current US government already is labeled as fascist by many, the guy who designated Anthropic supply chain risk is allegedly a war criminal.

I don’t see why anyone not into these things would not be a supply chain risk.

I know that its very unpopular or divisive to say this but Anthropic can be a hero only after all this is over. At this time people in charge do double tap on survivors and take pride for not having conscience, they give speeches about these things.

▲

kelnos 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Isn’t it actually quite fair that if you are not compliant with whatever the government wants you to do you will be supplying chain risk?

In the US, government is not in control of business specifics. Certainly the government can regulate businesses, but when the government wants to do business with a company, they don't get to dictate the terms. The government and the company come to a negotiated agreement, and then both abide by the terms of that agreement. Or they don't come to an agreement, and they go their separate ways, and that's the end of it.

This was just a contract dispute, and nothing more. The US government has no legal right to use any companies' products on terms that the US government dictates. (Yes, there are exceptional/emergency cases where they can do this, but that's more a nuclear option, and shouldn't be used lightly.) Consider a different set of circumstances: the US government wants to be able to use Claude at $10 per seat per month, unlimited usage. Should Anthropic be forced to accept these terms? And if they don't, it's reasonable to designate them a supply-chain risk? I don't think so. A dispute over contract terms around acceptable use is no different.

Designating Anthropic a supply-chain risk is about retaliation and retribution, plain and simple. The US government, outside of the Pentagon, could certainly use Anthropic for many different purposes if they wanted to, and it would be fine. But not now: as a supply-chain risk, no one in the US government can use them for any purpose. And this might even be a problem for unrelated companies that use Anthropic products internally, but also want to obtain and work on government contracts.

▲

dralley 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anthropic and the Government both signed a contract. Anthropic is still abiding the terms of that contract. The Government is demanding that they be able to disobey the contract.

▲

wrs 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Everything is negotiable, and the Negotiator in Chief clearly likes to pull all the levers he can find, legal or not. (Well, the Supreme Court ruled that it's all legal if he does it, right?)

▲

mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Implementation details TBH. They want “their boys” to do as said. No respect to agreement or legality as we can see in other dealings. They hold all they cards.

▲

stonogo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not an "implementation detail." Either obeying contract law subjects you to being designated a supply-chain risk, or it does not, and that decision has ramifications outside this "implementation."

▲

mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Irrelevant. The president holds all the cards, he is above the law and you are a supply chain risk if you ask anything else other than “how high” when you are told to jump. Laws or contracts are things in the past. The most a contract can do is define your limits and obligations, not your rights or privileges,

	▲	yibg 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If the president can come to your house and burn it down, do we just throw up our hands and say, well he holds all the cards, oh well. Or do we call that out as being a bad thing?
	▲	kelnos 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The president holds all the cards, he is above the law Even though it seems that way, he really isn't, even now. Many of his EOs and other actions have been struck down in court, and while compliance with court orders has been far from perfect (another alarming trend), Trump has not actually gotten away with doing everything he wants to do. I do fear for the future of this country, for rule of law, and the democractic norms that degrade day by day. But Trump is not actually above the law, as much as he wants to be.
	▲	nkohari 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The president holds all the cards, he is above the law This is provably not true. The fastest way for this to become true is to believe it, or at least to parrot it, even in a facetious way.
	▲	rjbwork 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You got downvoted a bit but I upvoted. You're clearly being descriptive in your statements, not prescriptive. I tend to agree that this is how things are now. Our country is not being run by the rule of law right now.