> Review is needed to enforce our Usage Policy... designated members of our Trust & Safety team may access this data on a need-to-know basis as a part of their evaluation process.
[0]: https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10458704-how-does-ant...
The critical part of a "threat" is that the perpetrator takes some intentional method to deliver it.
...But since they exist, the company acted more responsibly than if they had simply ignored the data they chose to observe. Which is both the bare minimum given the circumstances, but also strangely absent almost all the time in the industry (including within Anthropic).
I am not a lawyer, but I have the feeling that reporting a discovered terrorist manifesto or something similar is in the spirit of the law.
I am suggesting that the criminal case against her lacks mens rea because inside of her own mind she did not expect that anyone would read it.
A terrorist manifesto is in fact similar -- it wouldn't become a threat until that person takes some action to knowingly communicate it to others -- typically they'd be brought on terrorism/weapons/conspiracy charges.
I would love to sue every SaaS company for hard-to-understand terms too, as you suggest, but at what point would Anthropic actually need to tell someone about a terrorist manifesto that their customer gave them to read... Never?
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa...
Whether she intended to act upon the idea might be relevant to some other crime but it doesn't really have anything to do with whether it is a threat.