Should the public have an expectation of total privacy for their chats? It seems responsible for a chat provider to report things like this.

If they were to offer total privacy, is it ok for the public to use chat to get advice on _how_ to commit a crime? Basically everyone agrees that crime-committing advice is inappropriate…but if it is not ok to get advice, that means there must be a portal for law enforcement to step in when that may have happened. Then the question becomes what is the line for when to report? In other words, the issue needs to be adjudicated.

But we don’t want OpenAI/Claude to have some $20/hour reviewer making decisions that are this high stakes…we need the courts to do the judicial work because they (1) have a public charter, (2) have meaningful expertise and specialization at interpreting the law and (3) we can hold them accountable.

It doesn't really matter if they "should or shouldn't" have an expectation of privacy IMO, they already do have that expectation.

> If they were to offer total privacy, is it ok for the public to use chat to get advice on _how_ to commit a crime?

Yes it should be, but it should be illegal for a company providing chat service to respond with anything other than a refusal when doing so.

That detection and refusal should be a private closed loop though, anonymizing any data that will be passed into a training pipeline, or ads targeting. This requirement for closed loop private chats should be mandated by law sooner than later. Otherwise we're getting into very tricky territory where the temptation of alerting on things like pre-crime grows too close.