|
| ▲ | satvikpendem 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| > but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk, and bar any DoD supplier from using them for any purpose Just because you disagree with a power of the government does not mean the government does not have that power. |
| |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but also just because Congress gave the government a power to take an extraordinary measure in an extraordinary circumstance doesn't mean that the government can simply claim the circumstance happens all the time and use the measure whenever it strikes the fancy of some executive. Ultimately whether Anthropic is a true supply chain risk for the United States military is a question of fact, and the courts will have to decide. That the President or Secretary of Defense doesn't like a company doesn't make them a supply chain risk. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sure, which is why the judicial branch reviews such decisions, and has reviewed this one and has come to the conclusion that it was justified. Just because you don't like their ruling doesn't make it not binding. | | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A judicial ruling is by definition in accord with the law or constitution (because it literally becomes the law) whether you or I like it or not, if and until such a time as it is overturned. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | firesteelrain an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk Yes they are free to do that. You have to blame Congress for giving them that authority under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act and specifically 41 U.S.C. § 4713. But Claude’s ToS didn’t prohibit use of Claude for sensitive military operation but it was coded to do so. It was part of the government’s evidence |
| |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | No, they can only do that if a company is a true supply chain risk. Not everyone some idiot in the government doesn't like is a such a huge risk to the country that they can be banned from doing business with anyone doing business with the DoD. Ultimately this is for the courts to decide, and the current decision is not final. And while the two Trump-nominated judges agreed with you, the other judge agrees with me - so at least we can say that neither my nor your position is legally absurd. | | |
|
