faker
Frédéric Jacobs🤦Oh, it’s the Snowden revelations all over again.
They are claiming that AI-powered mass surveillance is a good thing but mass **domestic** surveillance isn’t
People who defend the leading AI companies working with the Department of War claim that the law is already constraining how these tools will be used.
I would have more sympathy for that argument if in the first few months of the use of AI, it had not been used in violation of International Law, abducting a head of state.
Lutin Discret@fj they know that the State will respect civic rights just like ai companies respected copyright. The rules are for the poors, not the oligarchy
Kevin Karhan 
Björn Hesthamar@fj This is such a dichotomy: US users that care about Anthropic and that are not subject to mass surveillance, seems to think that Anthropic cannot win without domestic mass surveillance and therefore they are worried. Foreign users on the other hand that are currently under mass surveillance, do not want to be mass surveilled by the US and they are therefore naturally also worried.
Aral Balkan@fj @bugbuster42 Alt text: Mass domestic surveillance. We
support the use of Al for lawful
foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence missions. But
using these systems for mass
domestic surveillance is incompatible
with democratic values. Al-driven
mass surveillance presents serious,
novel risks to our fundamental
liberties. To the extent that such
surveillance is currently legal, this is
only because the law has not yet
caught up with the rapidly growing
capabilities of AI. For example, under
current law, the government can
purchase detailed records of
Americans' movements, web
browsing, and associations from
public sources without obtaining a
warrant, a practice the Intelligence
Community has acknowledged raises
privacy concerns and that has
generated bipartisan opposition in
Congress. Powerful Al makes it
possible to assemble this scattered,
individually innocuous data into a
comprehensive picture of any person's
life-automatically and at massive
scale.
support the use of Al for lawful
foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence missions. But
using these systems for mass
domestic surveillance is incompatible
with democratic values. Al-driven
mass surveillance presents serious,
novel risks to our fundamental
liberties. To the extent that such
surveillance is currently legal, this is
only because the law has not yet
caught up with the rapidly growing
capabilities of AI. For example, under
current law, the government can
purchase detailed records of
Americans' movements, web
browsing, and associations from
public sources without obtaining a
warrant, a practice the Intelligence
Community has acknowledged raises
privacy concerns and that has
generated bipartisan opposition in
Congress. Powerful Al makes it
possible to assemble this scattered,
individually innocuous data into a
comprehensive picture of any person's
life-automatically and at massive
scale.
Hendrik WeimerIn case this isn't obvious: foreign intelligence in two countries plus sharing of intelligence (e.g., under UKUSA) *is* domestic surveillance.
flpdisk@fj So they're admitting that mass surveillance is incompatible with democracy (good, we need written confessions). They are also saying they don't want to do mass surveillance inside the USA, and so only the USA deserves democracy. Am I reading this correctly?
Daniel Demmel
𐙚⫘⫘⫘ᗷITᑕᕼᗷOY⫘⫘⫘𐙚
leon 🏳️🌈 🇵🇱@fj "we're okay with destroying democracy and civic society elsewhere, just not on our own turf"
Peter Brown@fj so the US will spy on the UK and the UK on the US then they swap data
Maria Chiara Pievatolo@fj It is a consequence of the Verdugo case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez 1990). According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fourh Amendment does not protect aliens abroad. It would be a good reason to avoid American Big Tech altogether.