This is a really interesting and well written case update/critique. I agree with the author's that the judge's reliance on Anthropic's fine-print privacy policy does not satisfy the actual legal standard governing privilege. Or if it did, it would raise extremely thorny issues around all of the cloud-based technology products that lawyers and clients use every day.
That said, I note that the court's opinion specifically calls out Anthropic's practice of *training models on user data* as a reason why the defendant could not have expected confidentiality. I do not use these cloud models for anything important precisely because they are operated by companies, like Anthropic, that are completely untrustworthy.
That was my first thought. If the test is “talking to a lawyer”, and all tools not directly controlled by the lawyer fall outside of the safe haven, then any cloud legal tools are not safe. What a stupid ruling.
Comments
This is a really interesting and well written case update/critique. I agree with the author's that the judge's reliance on Anthropic's fine-print privacy policy does not satisfy the actual legal standard governing privilege. Or if it did, it would raise extremely thorny issues around all of the cloud-based technology products that lawyers and clients use every day.
That said, I note that the court's opinion specifically calls out Anthropic's practice of *training models on user data* as a reason why the defendant could not have expected confidentiality. I do not use these cloud models for anything important precisely because they are operated by companies, like Anthropic, that are completely untrustworthy.
That was my first thought. If the test is “talking to a lawyer”, and all tools not directly controlled by the lawyer fall outside of the safe haven, then any cloud legal tools are not safe. What a stupid ruling.
Lucky for us it can be overturned, which I highly suspect it will be. Or at least this case will define the loopholes to use