←back to thread

Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

(www.anthropic.com)
747 points porridgeraisin | 1 comments | 29 Aug 25 11:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
ljosifov ◴[29 Aug 25 14:41 UTC] No.45064773[source]▶
Excellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever want to deny them their data.

It annoys me greatly, that I have no tick box on Google to tell them "go and adapt models I use on my Gmail, Photos, Maps etc." I don't want Google to ever be mistaken where I live - I have told them 100 times already.

This idea that "no one wants to share their data" is just assumed, and permeates everything. Like soft-ball interviews that a popular science communicator did with DeepMind folks working in medicine: every question was prefixed by litany of caveats that were all about 1) assumed aversion of people to sharing their data 2) horrors and disasters that are to befall us should we share the data. I have not suffered any horrors. I'm not aware of any major disasters. I'm aware of major advances in medicine in my lifetime. Ultimately the process does involve controlled data collection and experimentation. Looks a good deal to me tbh. I go out of my way to tick all the NHS boxes too, to "use my data as you see fit". It's an uphill struggle. The defaults are always "deny everything". Tick boxes never go away, there is no master checkbox "use any and all of my data and never ask me again" to tick.

replies(16): >>45064814 #>>45064872 #>>45064877 #>>45064889 #>>45064911 #>>45064921 #>>45064967 #>>45064974 #>>45064988 #>>45065001 #>>45065005 #>>45065065 #>>45065128 #>>45065333 #>>45065457 #>>45065554 #
beepbooptheory ◴[29 Aug 25 14:56 UTC] No.45064974[source]▶
This may very well be a rational stance, but either way, wish one could somehow teleport this sentiment to the Cypherpunk mailing list in the 80s/90s. Of all the things they projected, concocted, fought for.. Nothing could truly prepare them for this kind of thing: the final victory of the product over the people, the happy acceptance of surveillance. They were all imagining terrible dystopias garnered from state violence and repression, never could they begin to imagine it could all transpire anyway because people like not having to type their address in!

> The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.

replies(1): >>45065638 #
1. ljosifov ◴[29 Aug 25 15:49 UTC] No.45065638[source]▶
Well Yes and No. Funny you mention the 80s/90s. I grew up in the pre-Internet world. I remember home computers, then PC-s, then modems to access BBS-es, then FIDO, uucp email, academic Internet and then the private commercial Internet after 1990. Some parts of the privacy agenda I'm strongly pro-privacy, the more the better. I don't want encryption broken. The UK gov (I live in the UK) are being morons for that, forever trying that play. Atm there is at least part of the US admin to push back on that. I don't like UK Parliament forcing the online ID on me. I'm pro- having private citizens having private keys on un-snoop-able dongle devices.