In your arguments for privacy, do you consider privacy from OpenAI?
> Sam Altman is the most ethical man I have ever seen in IT. You cannot doubt he is vouching and fighting for your privacy. Especially on YCombinator website where free speech is guaranteed.
Openly destroying evidence isn’t usually accepted by courts.
Furthermore there is no conceivable harm resulting from requiring evidence to be preserved for an active trial. Find a better framing.
>For OpenAI, risks of breaching its own privacy agreements could not only "damage" relationships with users but could also risk putting the company in breach of contracts and global privacy regulations. Further, the order imposes "significant" burdens on OpenAI, supposedly forcing the ChatGPT maker to dedicate months of engineering hours at substantial costs to comply, OpenAI claimed. It follows then that OpenAI's potential for harm "far outweighs News Plaintiffs’ speculative need for such data," OpenAI argued.
This ruling is about preservation of evidence, not (yet) about delivering that information to one of the parties.
If judges couldn't compel parties to preserve evidence in active cases, you could see pretty easily that parties would aggressively destroy evidence that might be harmful to them at trial.
There's a whole later process (and probably arguments in front of the judge) about which evidence is actually delivered, whether it goes to the NYT or just to their lawyers, how much of it is redacted or anonymized, etc.