Not only that they can review flagged content, but they tend to have separate retention policies for flagged content. Anthropic's is this: "We retain inputs and outputs for up to 2 years and trust and safety classification scores for up to 7 years if your chat or session is flagged by our automated trust and safety systems as violating our Usage Policy."

So don't run for office or anything like that. Someone, somewhere will have a contact that will get that.

It kinda is, actually. If the LLM had responded with 'woah, are you serious? That sounds like a crime and I can't just ignore that, it's made clear to the customer that such statements are out of bounds even if they were meant hyperbolically or humorously. But if someone crosses the guardrails and the system silently reports them, that's very much spying.

Obviously, it's hard to judge exactly what was appropriate there because we're being asked to extrapolate from a two word quote about the customer intending to "shoot up" the sheriff's office. Consider the following two statements, which express quite different levels of intentionality.

I got a $200 ticket from a sheriff's deputy today for throwing away an apple core. I'm so mad. I'd like to shoot up their office!

Those sheriff's deputies have exhausted my last reservoir of patience. I'm going to shoot up the department. They'll be sorry when they're sprawled all over the floor bleeding out from saucer-sized shotgun slug wounds. I can't wait to hear the screaming and crying of their miserable families!!"

I'm guessing that the diary entry was a more casual expression similar to the first statement, or they police would have quoted more of the statement to emphasize the apparent severity of the risk but it's hard to say without reading the charging documents.

>Spying is not the right analogy because the information was given to the police by a third party which had a EULA saying they would do this. A more analogous situation would be someone reading another person’s diary and then turning it into the police department.

This is spying with extra steps couched in corporate speak.

Many clankers deny data retention or spying on the user if you ask them. That should be completely illegal.

Then, you can write anything in an EULA but it is not automatically legal either.

Interesting that it exempts telephone calls. Why don't we treat other messaging services like phone calls?

The subjective element of crime (i.e. doing it on purpose) is fundamental also in the US legal system. If the person wasn't aware that someone else might see their messages, it should be hard to claim that they committed the crime.

According to Gemini, "Florida appellate courts have overturned juvenile convictions [based on this law] when the state could not prove the person subjectively intended for the record to be seen."

If the AI recommends murder and you exhibit a pattern of following AI advice are you guilty of precrime

The prosecutors aren't on the hook, anyway. They have absolute immunity. The decision to charge is protected. The prosecutor would have to have done one of the few, enumerable things outside the scope of the role, like conducting an investigation without probable cause or hiding exculpatory evidence.

That is not what sandboxing solves. A good sandbox would inject credentials into provider API calls so that the model never sees credentials, but the provider is still going to see the transcript. Sandboxes do not require or imply that there is a local model. Sandboxes limit what the agent can access on the host machine as well as the network and public internet.

how does sandbox help in this case when you use a provider like anthropic/openai?

It still shocks me the number of people I know who freely let agents on devices that contain unencrypted private keys, freely dump internal data into cloud models and generally don't give a second thought about any of it being trained on, inevitably leaked one day in a db breach or read by providers. I find it's best to consider any data put into a cloud model the same as if it were posted publicly online, since that is the very possible eventual end result.

Hopefully more of these stories push people towards local models :)

If you overhear someone, in the privacy of their house, threatening to murder someone and go to the police, surely you don't expect this report being thrown out and you being yourself charged with the violation of someone's privacy instead?

IIRC if the evidence wasn't lawfully gathered (which it sounds like it was, tbh) then it wouldn't be a mistrial, it would be thrown out and then the prosecution wouldn't have any evidence of any crime.

If you draft an email threatening someone and delete it without sending have you committed a felony because someone at Google could be reading your drafts box, stored in a datacenter across state lines?

What if she mailed it to herself?

What if she put it in a locked box before shipping it to herself UPS, and she has the only key?

What if instead of UPS, she hired a moving company to move the locked box?

What if she wrote it electronically in diary.txt, but it was backed up to a cloud provider?

--

I'm guessing there's some sort of "reasonable expectation of privacy" for certain activities. We're going to find out what Florida courts think about this new medium.

Surely this is the wrong side of what "sending" here will be interpreted as?

Saving is not sending ie passive vs active act.

> in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person

Does the person have to know (or at least believe) that it will be viewed by another person?

She likely didn't think anyone would view it. Honestly, even as a career software developer I don't think it is unreasonable to think know would would see what she wrote to an AI. I assume most of what I write to an AI is not viewed by any other human, based simply on the quantity of messages sent back and forth to AIs, I would assume a vast majority are not read by another human.

What if she had written this into google docs, and she kept a diary there? That also crosses state lines, and is transmitted to another location.

I get were you are coming from but this all feels like it needs more context to make a better judgement.

You can argue from technicalities but they would need to prove intent.