Judge Says Requiring ChatGPT to Save Chat Logs Is Not a ‘Mass Surveillance Program’

OPENAI and some of its users have opposed an order of the court which obliges the company to maintain all the chat de chatgpt newspapers in the context of a copyright trial, claiming that the conservation of these files is equivalent to a “national mass surveillance program”. The court has not been moved. Ona Wang judge, who initially issued the preservation order of all the data from the popular chatbot, rejected several requests for the reversal of the decision – although Optai is committed to continuing to fight against the order, According to Ars Technica.

Attempts to end the current preservation of chat newspapers and data come from two chatgpt users. The first was laid By a business owner who uses Chatgpt in the workflow of his business and said that the order would potentially expose “confidential commercial operations, trade secrets, source code and intellectual property developments”. Wang rejected this complaint on the grounds that the company did not hire a lawyer to write the file, by Ars Technica.

Another request To reduce the requirements to store user newspapers from a user who said they “sometimes have” very sensitive personal and commercial information “during the use of chatgpt. The user said that the order to store all newspapers would create a “national mass surveillance program” and could affect “all Chatgpt users” who were unaware that their messages would be kept.

Wang judge was not moved by this either. “The proposed speaker does not explain how the retention order for a court documents which directs the preservation, segregation and retention of certain private data by a private company for limited purposes of the dispute is or could be a national mass monitoring program”, it wrote In response to the complaint.

Wang’s argument is essentially that, although its order requires Chatgpt to hang on to everything, including deleted cat newspapers, this does not mean that everything will be made public. It is rather kept for this particular case and will only be used in relation to it, and Openai should continue to try to fight the order as the case advances.

But at the very least, the decision should serve as a head for chatgpt users and other chatbots: your conversations are not guaranteed to be deprived. Although at least one user tried to argue that it is the judge’s order that creates a mass surveillance network, it might be useful to consider that it is technology that created this possibility, not order.