This. All of your rights are up for debate under a judge. There’s only a few you can still exercise if a judge wants something from you but ultimately if a judge decides it’s relevant to the case, it’s relevant to the case and you must comply. Or be held in contempt. Or praise? With a senate hearing to boot. I’m confused on how our legal system actually functions now but that is how it’s supposed to be. If a judge decides to include it, it’s in. Go get it.

▲

chasil 3 hours ago | parent [-]

One of my friends recently spent some time getting an OpenClaw instance running in Ubuntu so he could have a truly private conversation with it, complete with an air gap.

The value of that configuration has just been greatly magnified.

▲

nozzlegear 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Has it? There's value in privacy vis-a-vis snooping corporations, but those conversations could still be surrendered to the court if the judge rules them potentially relevant, and if your friend refuses to do so, he'd be held in contempt of court.

	▲	chasil 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The judge would have to know about them. Perhaps this could be gleaned from your ISP's records, but it would be far more difficult than determining the existence of an account at Anthropic.