This is spying with extra steps couched in corporate speak.
Frustrations about Anthropic’s EULA are a separate matter.
Presumably, Anthropic did the spying and the reporting.
You argued that it is not spying, since the spying may have been made sufficiently explicit in the ToS/EULA.
This raises the question: Does announcing a spying operation mean that it is no longer spying? I've never heard that perspective before.
Well, kind of, yeah; the dictionary definition of spying requires secrecy and lack of consent.
> to secretly collect and report information about the activities of another country or organization[0]
The only real debate is whether or not having a clause tucked away in a EULA that few people read makes it a secret. If Anthropic had a big flashing red banner that said "FYI we automatically flag and review any conversations about illegal things!!" on the front page nobody would call it spying.
[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/spying
A less central case would be when you clearly do know about the activity but you can't quite see the details, like with behavioral ad targeting or something. It feels pretty normal to me to call that spying even if it's disclosed to everyone and certainly happens to everyone, but it's also a less central example of the concept.
You can call it anything you like, but only the legal definitions matter for the legal case.
If you change the situation then yes you can in fact change our responses. The problem is you then are no longer talking about the original situation.
It also bears mentioning that providing a dictionary link to “spying” is pretty patronizing/passive aggressive. On par with sending a basic Wikipedia page. You didn’t even bother to post the definition you want to apply.
The initial comment instead questioned how someone could be accused of making a threat if they did not realize anyone would read their private content. You probably also can not insult someone with a statement you never expected anyone but you will ever read.
Eh. Both Superpowers knew that they were spying on each other all the time, and that was still considered to be spying. But feel free to replace the word "spying" with the phrase "clandestine largely-automated mass surveillance" if it makes you more comfortable.
> ...and lack of consent.
Given
* the fact that the contracts one is required to "agree" to in order to use most services are often novella-length or longer, and frequently include by reference other contracts of similar length
* that nearly all contracts like this have a clause where not only does the powerful party reserve the -very frequently-exercised- right to change the terms of the contract without any prior notice, but said party presumes that you automatically accept the rewritten contract and gives you no option to negotiate
I'd argue that the real situation on the ground -in the US, at least- is that "consumers" have consented to approximately zero of the contracts that -despite that lack of consent- legally bind them.
You don’t need to presume. Anthropic reported it.
“Spying” as a legal concept has a definition that does not apply here. You could say they were “spying” in the sense that they read someone’s input, but that’s literally what they said they were going to do in the agreement when the person signed up.
So I responded to the question about the case being thrown out for “spying” by trying to show that the word doesn’t apply in the legal sense. If you sign up for a service that says “Hey we’re going to monitor your chats and might report things to the authorities” and then they monitor your chats and report things to the authorities, you should not expect the case to be thrown out for “spying”.
"Anthropic" does not read messages, it's an abstract entity involving many humans and computers, so let's be specific wherever possible.
> and respond to it in some way.
The computer is supposed to respond in a specific way that doesn't involve humans. Any reading/actions by humans is entirely separate and not expected.
> If you sent an email to a colleague threatening violence, you would not be surprised to find out it was reported.
And if I didn't send it, I would be surprised.
They get friendly and loose-lipped with the bartender over the span of months. Eventually they let slip that they plan on killing their spouse for a life insurance payout. At first the bartender thinks they're joking, but it becomes evident that there's an actual plan being acted upon and someone's life is very likely in imminent danger.
Does the bartender have a responsibility to go to the police?
/s obviously
Calling something names doesn't invalidate it. It only invalidates what point you're trying to make.