It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.
As if barely two 9s of uptime wasn't enough.
Grabbing users during start up with the less privacy focused option preselected isn't being "very transparent"
They could have forced the user to make a choice or defaulted to not training on their content but they instead they just can't help themselves.
“If you do not choose to provide your data for model training, you’ll continue with our existing 30-day data retention period.“
From the support page: https://privacy.anthropic.com/en/articles/10023548-how-long-...
“If you choose not to allow us to use your chats and coding sessions to improve Claude, your chats will be retained in our back-end storage systems for up to 30 days.”
I have to admit, I've used it a bit over the last days and still reactivated my Claude pro subscription today so... Let's say it's ok for casual stuff? Also useful for casual coding questions. So if you care about it, it's an option.
I'm looking at
> "When you use the Assistant by Kagi, your data is never used to train AI models (not by us or by the LLM providers), and no account information is shared with the LLM providers. By default, threads are deleted after 24 hours of inactivity. This behavior can be adjusted in the settings."
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/ai/assistant.html#privacy
And trying to reconcile those claims with the instant thread. Anthropic is listed as one of their back-end providers. Is that data retained for five years on Anthropic's end, or 24 hours? Is that data used for training Anthropic models, or has Anthropic agreed in writing not to, for Kagi clients?
Implicit consent is not transparent and should be illegal in all situations. I can't tell you that unless you opt out, You have agreed to let me rent you apartment.
You can say analogy is not straightforward comparable but the overall idea is the same. If we enter a contract for me to fix your broken windows, I cannot extend it to do anything else in the house I see fit with Implicit consent.
Nitpicking: “opt in by default” doesn’t exist, it’s either “opt in”, or “opt out”; this is “opt out”. By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default.
No one cares about anything else but they have lots of superflous text and they are calling it "help us get better", blah blah, it's "help us earn more money and potentially sell or leak your extremely private info", so they are lying.
Considering cancelling my subscription right this moment.
I hope EU at leat considers banning or extreme-fining companies trying to retroactively use peoples extremely private data like this, it's completely over the line.
The fact that there's no law mandating opt-in only for data retention consent (or any anti-consumer "feature") is maddening at times
I'd love to live in a society where laws could effectively regulate these things. I would also like a Pony.
Its only utopian because it's become so incredibly bad.
We shouldn't expect less, we shouldn't push guilt or responsibility onto the consumer we should push for more, unless you actively want your neighbour, you mom, and 95% of the population to be in constant trouble with absolutely everything from tech to food safety, chemicals or healthcare - most people aren't rich engineers like on this forum and i don't want to research for 5 hours every time i buy something because some absolute psychopaths have removed all regulation and sensible defaults so someone can party on a yacht.
Except not:
> The interface design has drawn criticism from privacy advocates, as the large black "Accept" button is prominently displayed while the opt-out toggle appears in smaller text beneath. The toggle defaults to "On," meaning users who quickly click "Accept" without reading the details will automatically consent to data training.
Definitely happened to me as it was late/lazy.
You could try programming with your own brain
At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving, and why it super coincidentally the exact years you learnt it?
Also, for others who want to opt-out, the toggle is in the T&C modal itself.
Never?
https://claude.ai/settings/data-privacy-controls
It was easy to not opt-in, I got prompted before I saw any of this.
I think they should keep the opt-in behavior past Sept 28 personally.
No, (IMO) an "opt out" setting / status is assumed/enabled without asking.
So, I think this is opt-in, until Sept 28.
Opt-in, whether pre-checked/pre-ticked or not, means the business asks you.
GDPR requires "affirmative, opt-in consent", perhaps we use that term to mean an opt-in, not pre-ticked.
> So, I think this is opt-in, until Sept 28.
If the business opted for consent, then you will effectively have the choice for refusal, a.k.a. opt-out.
Self plug here - If you aren't technical and still want to run models locally, you can try our App [1]
Local office will do a blood draw, send it to a 3rd party analysis which isn't covered by insurance, then bill you full. And you had NO contractual relationship with the testing company.
Same scam. And its all because our government is completely captured by companies and oligopoly. Our government hasn't represented the people in a long time.
That's called opt-out. You're doing exactly what I described: gaslighting people into believing that opt-in and opt-out are synonymous, rendering the entire concept meaningless. The audacity of you labeling people as "political" while resorting to such Orwellian manipulation is astounding. How can you lecture others about the purpose of languages with a straight face when you're redefining terms to make it impossible for people to express a concept?
These are examples of what "opt-in by default" actually means. It means having the user manually consent to something every time, the polar opposite your definition.
- https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/report-new-apple-int...
- https://github.com/rom1504/img2dataset/issues/293
It's also just pure laziness to label me as "hysterical" when PR departments of companies like Google have, like you, misused the terms opt-out and opt-in in deceptive ways.
> Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting
> That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take.
... however, this comment was a reasonable response.
Projective framing demonstrates your own lack of concern for accuracy, clarity or conviviality, that is 180 degrees at odds with the point you are making and the site you are making it on.
Essentially, because they are presented in a form that is so easy to bypass and so very common in our modern online life, provisions that give up too much to the service provider or would be too unusual or unexpected to find in such an agreement are unenforceable.