←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: 0.22s | 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 #
soraminazuki ◴[29 Aug 25 15:42 UTC] No.45065554[source]▶
You can train commercial AI with your data right now without screwing over everyone else on the planet. It's easy, just publish your entire trove of personal data on a website and AI crawlers will happily gobble it all up. You can publish your name, home address, work, government-issued ID, financial transactions, chats, browser history, location history, surveillance footage of your home, all for free. So what are you waiting for? Just do it now if you want to share data that badly, there's no need to wait for the approval of "privacy maximalists."
replies(1): >>45072819 #
1. ljosifov ◴[30 Aug 25 08:02 UTC] No.45072819[source]▶
I'm not 'screwing' anyone. I'm saying - the same way people don't want to have their data used, I DO want my data used. I'm not saying they use YOUR data. I'm saying they use MY data.

Likewise, I'm not telling you what you publish. In the same manner, I dislike it you telling me that I publish. So on

> name, home address, work, government-issued ID, financial transactions, chats, browser history, location history, surveillance footage of your home, all for free.

It's up to me, not you, what I decided to publish or not. Fwiw, I already publish

> name, home address, work,

willingly. My name is public (how can it be otherwise?) and home address is in the electoral register that is public. My work info is in the UK companies register, available for reading to all, on the web

I publish to selected parties

> government-issued ID

even if I don't want it. (we don't have specific 'government-issued ID' for ID purposes like in the Continent; my driving licence is used for that) I did it yesterday, because UK gov requires companies to collect that information. Yesterday I had to give two photos of myself to an online pharmacy shop because UK gov mandates that they collect that info - and I disliked that very much. The online pharmacy is not the one pushing for that data, its the UK gov forcing that one them via regulation of how that particular medication is to be sold online.

I don't want to publish and don't publish

> financial transactions, chats, browser history, location history, surveillance footage of your home

...and don't understand where this gale to tell perfect strangers what they should do with their lives comes from?? I don't tell you what you should or should not publish? Ditto for the pricing

> all for free.

Up to me to decide. I don't tell you what you do - so you don't tell me what I do, pretty please.

I am not waiting on "privacy maximalists." I try to share my data for some purpose I need. I loathe 'privacy maximalist' in the UK for having influenced the current laws of the land in a way to cater for their obsessions and ignore my desires. I think I'm in majority, not minority. Our current predicament seems to me the case of "public lies, private truths." A small cadre of vocal proponents of a particular view, established "the ground truth to what is desirable". (in this case - maximum privacy, ideally zero information sharing) The public goes with it in words, pays lip service, while in deeds, the revealed preferences show that we value our data privacy very little - almost zero. Even one click extra to share our data less, is one click too many, an effort too high for most people. Again - these are revealed preferences, for people keep lying when asked. It's not even the case of "you are lying to me" - no, it's more like "you are lying to yourself."