> Prosecutors argued that they had a right to demand material that Heppner created with Claude because his defense lawyers were not directly involved, and because attorney-client privilege does not apply to chatbots. > > Voluntarily revealing information from a lawyer to any third party can jeopardize the customary legal protections for those attorney communications. > > Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ruled, opens new tab in February that Heppner must hand over 31 documents generated by Anthropic's chatbot Claude related to the case. > > No attorney-client relationship exists "or could exist, between an AI user and a platform such as Claude," Rakoff wrote.

If I hand wrote some notes in a notebook or diary, I wouldn't have to hand them over, as I understand it, even with no lawyer in the mix. Same if I wrote some notes in a text file on my computer.

Leaving AI aside, what in particular makes this different from using any other cloud-based software? Does writing a Google Doc to gather my thoughts or a draft email in Gmail constituent "revealing information from a lawyer to a third party"?

What if Google have enabled AI-features on these? Feels like this area really needs clarity for users rather than waiting for courts to rule on it.

> If I hand wrote some notes in a notebook or diary, I wouldn't have to hand them over, as I understand it, even with no lawyer in the mix. Same if I wrote some notes in a text file on my computer.

Absolutely wrong in the U.S. The police can't just break into your home and demand it, but a judge can 100% mandate discovery or a subpoena if there is reason to believe that evidence exists which is relevant to the case.

The 4th amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE search and seizure, and we let judges make that determination. You never have absolute privacy rights.

> If I hand wrote some notes in a notebook or diary, I wouldn't have to hand them over, as I understand it, even with no lawyer in the mix. Same if I wrote some notes in a text file on my computer.

There is some protection of personal private documents for civil cases. But for a criminal case, there is no 4th or 5th amendment protection for stuff you wrote in your diary.

Reading the ruling in more detail, this is definitely a "this is not even close case."

First off, the Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate is rather narrower than you might expect. With regard to document production, it only privileges you from having to produce documents if the act of producing those documents would in effect incriminate you. So if you tell people "I've got a diary where I've been keeping track of all the crimes I've committed..." the government can force you to turn over that diary.

Second, the default assumption whenever you send something to another person is that it's unprivileged communication. IANAL, but even using cloud storage for things I'd want to remain privileged is something I'd want to ask a lawyer about before relying on. Although that's also as much because the default privacy policy of most services is "fuck you."

Which is what happened here. Claude's privacy policy says that Anthropic reserves the right to share your chats with third parties for various reasons, which means you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those communications in the first place and automatically defeats any other confidential privileges. What happened is therefore little different from the defendant texting his attorney's responses to his friends, which is a fairly time-worn way of defeating attorney-client privilege.

Seems an opportune time to remember that every day is STFU Friday. And, to quote The Wire, is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?

Consider AI prompts no different from Google searches: they can be subpoenaed.

And consider local LLM logs no different from your txt file or command history on your computer. Could still be requested for discovery.

>If I hand wrote some notes in a notebook or diary, I wouldn't have to hand them over, as I understand it, even with no lawyer in the mix. Same if I wrote some notes in a text file on my computer.

Is that true? I would expect that any notes I have in any form could be requested during discovery (client-attorney priviledge being one of the few exceptions and narrower than people assume).

I don't think this is any different from other cloud-based software. Cloud providers can be compelled to turn over your data, as long as they're actually capable of doing so. If you don't want your data being snarfed up from a cloud provider and used in court, then only use cloud providers with end-to-end encryption, or better yet don't put your data in cloud providers at all.

The only reason this ruling is even remotely interesting is because people don't understand computer systems, and chatbots feel different. For the technologically minded, it should be pretty obvious that typing into a chatbot is no different from typing into a Google Doc, and that the data in both can be available to the legal system without the user's involvement or consent. But most people aren't technologically minded and may not have realized that all of their data is being saved and made available like that.