238 pointsby pseudolus8 hours ago23 comments
  • epistasis7 hours ago
    Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment.

    That has all changed today, except for Anthropic. You think Apple is going to stand up to an unlawful DoJ demand these days? Hell no. Tim Cook has lit Apple's reputation on fire. I've been a super dedicated Apple user for 25 years, but I'm heading for the exits now. All that trust has been burned.

    Stay strong Anthoproc, you are seemingly the only really large SV company with any principles and backbone. I won't forget what happens here, either way it goes.

    • txrx0000an hour ago
      Anthropic is not on the side of the people. None of these companies are. They've made it clear that they want to gatekeep LLM capabilities.

      https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...

      These companies use safety and intellectual property as excuses to achieve centralization. But if you think about it for more than a second, they're basically saying "intelligence for me but not for thee."

      I don't want to live in a world where a handful of entities control all of the intelligence, and I don't think you do either. The best future we can hope for is one where everyone can run an open-source AGI on their own gaming PC. And by run I mean local matmuls, not API calls to a remote server.

    • pamcake7 hours ago
      I'd hold off making that call on Anthropic here until at least after Friday. I'm not sure if persisting that "constructive dialogue is taking place in good faith" and saying nothing else in public signifies backbone considering preceding and consecutive public statements by government officials... It certainly doesn't instil confidence in honesty or transparency.
      • torginusan hour ago
        What happens on Friday?
      • bpodgursky4 hours ago
        I mean they got threatened with the Defense Production Act. Firmly standing their ground without an inch of give may backfire spectacularly too, if the DoD injects itself into model training.

        I think they pretty clearly demonstrated good faith and where it ends up is a tactical choice I'm not in a great position to judge.

        • tehjoker3 hours ago
          If DoD seizes the IP, the issue is they will need the cooperation of their scientists at least in the short term, if they want it to remain a fronter model. The labor angle isn't entirely guaranteed though the white collar worker has very little spine in this country.
          • JumpCrisscrossan hour ago
            > DoD seizes the IP

            Almost certainly not on the table. If Hegseth did this he’d crash the market. That’s a red line he will only cross out of stupidity.

            • petersellersan hour ago
              > That’s a red line he will only cross out of stupidity.

              So you're saying it's highly likely then?

            • hackyhackyan hour ago
              > That’s a red line he will only cross out of stupidity.

              We've been saying this about many policies of this administration, only to be sorely disappointed.

    • JumpCrisscross2 hours ago
      > That has all changed today

      Anecdote, but I knew a couple senior folks at Apple during the San Bernardino encryption dispute [1]. My understanding is Cupertino was surprised—going all the way to the top—how much backlash they got for what they felt was the natural reaction. (Not to unlock.)

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...

    • GaryBluto3 hours ago
      > Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people. They fought to defend the 4th amendment.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

      PRISM started in 2007, during the Iraq war.

    • vjvjvjvjghv5 hours ago
      “ the tech companies were on the side of the American people”

      They are on the side of making money. And the bigger they are, the more pressure. The big tech companies are now so big that they can’t afford to leave any money in the table if they want to keep their growth rates.

    • efnx2 hours ago
      Can you substantiate these claims with with anything? What unlawful DoJ demands has Apple given in to? Anthropic is still very early in their trajectory compared to Apple with its ~50 year run, so it's not exactly an Apple to apples comparison.
    • kdheiwns4 hours ago
      Tech companies in the early 2000s were nerds who grew up in an environment where tech was for losers and a waste of time. A lot of those people had strong values and did it because they enjoyed it and wanted other nerds like themselves to have cool stuff.

      Now companies are dominated by MBAs and nepotism. Most join tech for a quick cash out. Having values is seen as a loss, because if you can get a billion, why not? You're invincible if you're rich and none of these downsides apply to you. Screw everyone else. They could just be a billionaire themselves if they don't like it.

      As a result, zoomers today meme about people like the unabomber making a good point.

      • matheusmoreira4 hours ago
        > As a result, zoomers today meme about people like the unabomber making a good point.

        I don't blame them.

        As a nerd I think my spirit was broken by the absolute apathy of the normies. It was easy to ignore up until the early 2000s. It's become unbearable after social media and the iPhone reached the masses. It's not nerd stuff anymore. They influence every design now. They shape every decision. They are actively exploited at every turn. They are profiled, surveilled, controlled. It's gotten to the point even we nerds can't escape this fate no matter how much we want to. We try to tell them about it and we're made out to be tinfoil hat nutjobs. It's happening and they don't care.

        It feels so hopeless and it's honestly very radicalizing. It breeds sociopathy. In the end I can't find the will to blame the billionaires either. I think I'd do the same if I could. Make billions and then just create a small paradise for me and all the people I care about. A subset of society where the principles I hold dear actually apply. Society is too fucked up and nobody cares, so I'll just create my own fiefdom.

        • Torwald2 hours ago
          The problem is not that the normies don't care, the problem is a society that seems to need that to function well for everybody. The problem is the existence of government. Instead of a state we need a society based on private property, that would solve these problems. It is about who has the possibility to apply force and a state government enables that in a wrong way.
          • kdheiwnsan hour ago
            Abolish the state and just let greedy ultra billionaires go wild with private property and make the existing problems even worse. Yeah, I'll pass. The only reason things are still somewhat functional is because a few people within the state are pushing back against the ultra wealthy who are trying to dismantle the state so they can get exactly that fiefdom.
      • hackit24 hours ago
        That can be so far from the truth it hurts thinking about it. Governments passed laws that mandated that businesses must legally comply with DOJ or Government Investigates on people of interest. Otherwise they will be blocked in those countries. No users = No money. Most government consider they're extending you the privilege to conduct business with their citizens, and by virtue of granting you those rights you're burden with complying with the countries laws/security and/or audits.
    • tolerance3 hours ago
      > Back during the Iraq war days and government overreach into privacy violations, the tech companies were on the side of the American people.

      Companies such as?

    • verisimian hour ago
      There are such things and secret courts with secret rulings. You and I have no idea what is actually occurring because of this secrecy; we can only talk about that which is stated publicly.
    • SanjayMehta7 hours ago
      All our Intel Macs are getting repurposed for Ubuntu LTS - whatever version which supports our CAD tools.
      • mixmastamyk6 hours ago
        Recommend Mint instead. Flatpak instead of snap.
        • SanjayMehta5 hours ago
          Some tools go out of their way to whine piteously if they can't find Ubuntu in /etc/issue et al. We were using Mint, just got tired of messing with installation scripts every time an upgrade came. And as the transition to Linux accelerates, it's just more convenient to stick with whatever the vendor wants.
          • inetknght3 hours ago
            > tools go out of their way to whine piteously if they can't find Ubuntu in /etc/issue et al

            If those tools are open source, fix them. If they're not open source, don't use them. Problem solved.

            It's not hard to write an installation script.

        • bsharper3 hours ago
          You mean you DON'T want to see every utility installed via snap listed as a mount point? /s
    • iwontberude2 hours ago
      Your critique of Apple and Tim Cook is unsubstantiated and misleading. That same Tim Cook stood up to the FBI and refused to participate in breaking into phones for them when they were pressed in 2015-2016. The same Apple that later fought against the government forcing document scanning in iCloud and was able to keep them off device. They have been fighting the whole time. Apple is was first to normalize whole disk encryption on commercial machines, they have made Safari a weapon against tracking which is abused by governments. Also every single company in the US is subject to National Security Letters and Apple uses warrant canaries to inform the public within the limits of the law.

      And then to appeal to Anthropic is just offensively, willfully ignorant.

      • dns_snek25 minutes ago
        > That same Tim Cook stood up to the FBI and refused to participate in breaking into phones for them

        I hope you have more evidence for this than just that press release. As far as I'm concerned that was nothing more than a stunt because while Tim Cook "fought" against the FBI, intelligence agencies and private cybersecurity companies already had the capability to break into ~all smartphones.

        That single instance created an unreasonable amount of belief that iPhones are unbreakable, which is good news if you're the FBI and you want criminals to put way more trust into their iPhones than they should.

        The same Apple actively aids Chinese government's suppression of civil liberties [1]. To think that there's any ideological conviction (and moral high ground) behind their [apparent] pro-privacy stance is painfully naive.

        [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/11/apple-limits-i...

    • myvoiceismypass7 hours ago
      Hate to break the news but they might not be good guys either - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47145963

      (Dropping safety pledge)

      • ipaddr7 hours ago
        They over did the safety aspect in my opinion.
      • reasonableklout6 hours ago
        Do you think it's possible the two are related?
        • yunnpp6 hours ago
          It's obvious that they are.

          The best thing the company could do if they want to stick to principles is not be based in the US.

  • samrus6 hours ago
    Bullied into doing surveillance? Brother a large part of the tech companies valuations are built on how well they allow the government to do surveillance if the governement wants. They arent victims being bullied, they all knew this day would come ajd most were happy about it
    • ReptileMan2 hours ago
      Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus Government: Why do you think that you will keep it for yourself?
  • saurik7 hours ago
    Maybe tech companies should try a bit harder to not centralize the world's information, unencrypted, on servers they control.
    • sejje7 hours ago
      Amen.

      But then they can't make their billions selling our data.

    • uutangohotel6 hours ago
      oops accidental surveillance machine
      • ReptileMan2 hours ago
        Nothing accidental and no oops.
    • KennyBlanken3 hours ago
      Huh? That's basically an integral part of nearly any tech company's life cycle?

      You might as well suggest Mobil not sell gasoline or oil.

  • wolvesechoes15 minutes ago
    Oh, they do not need to be bullied at all, even if they present it differently for PR points.
  • djoldman6 hours ago
    As an aside, why is it not a law that the government can't pay another entity to do something it's not allowed to do itself, without a warrant? I'm thinking about geo data from mobile apps.
    • AngryData16 minutes ago
      Because the US has been corrupted for quite a long time now, we just liked to bury ours heads in the sand and pretend otherwise until now because it hadn't bitten us in the ass too hard. There is no such thing as the spirit of the law, it has no useful meaning in US law. Loop holes and oversight in legislation and rulings is not seen as a bad thing, it is seen as desirable because it lets us be corrupt legally, and in many cases earns courts and cops and lawyers a hefty profit off the backs of the citizenry.
    • JumpCrisscrossan hour ago
      > why is it not a law that the government can't pay another entity to do something it's not allowed to do itself, without a warrant?

      I think the median American favors security over freedom right now. The reality of cable news and now social media is that an unsolved crime is a national anxiety. When we’re whipped into a collective panic like that, it seems outright ridiculous that the cops not be allowed to access anything that could help.

    • samename6 hours ago
      It’s due to the third party doctrine, a Supreme Court precedent

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

      • pseudalopex3 hours ago
        The 3rd party doctrine is why it is allowed when no law restricts it. It does not prevent Congress to pass a law.
      • avs7334 hours ago
        which has been warped all out of any comprehensible reality. It hinges on the idea of 'voluntarily' turning over information. Much of what is now considered information voluntarily turned over isn't even information that people know exist much less that they are turning over much less doing so voluntarily.
        • inetknght3 hours ago
          It's not voluntary if you don't know about it.
        • KennyBlanken3 hours ago
          Requiring someone pay for information by any common sense interpretation isn't voluntary.

          The courts have lost their goddamn minds.

    • efnx2 hours ago
      Why even should they be allowed to contract an action that they themselves cannot perform - even _with_ a warrant? Is that not still "doing" the action?
    • pwndByDeath6 hours ago
      Give up social media, make the man do it the old fashion way.
    • simoncion2 hours ago
      If the government is being too obvious about the fact that the entity in question is nothing more than its puppet, then something can be done about that. Entities that are government entities in everything but name can be considered to be government entities and become subject to all the relevant restrictions. There's some fancy-ass phrase for this, but I can't remember it at the moment.

      Also, the third-party doctrine hasn't been good enough for certainly the last thirty and maybe the last hundred years. But, authoritarians aren't easily separated from their tools of oppression, so I expect to not see that cluster of regulations updated to be actually protective within my lifetime.

  • moezd3 hours ago
    The reason a tech company exists isn't solely your convenience. They need to find different ways to bill you, so they start by collecting telemetry. If their offering is a multi-tenant situation from their backend, then they need to address the noisy neighbor problem, thundering herd, abuse detection... The more programmable the product is, the heavier impact these tools have, and at some point, it gathers the attention of the state. They are not bullied, the tech companies are not the victims here. You are, as a customer, because you're lured in with generous free tier offerings first and you're locked in over time, and when the inevitable comes you either 1) Consider migration 2) Accept the vendor lock-in to whatever degree that feels comfortable to you.
  • ynac3 hours ago
    Bullied? As I understand a few of the situations over the past 15-20 years I've been near, it was either a false bully (Godfather II, Michael at the Senate hearings) or just an outright delivery on promise - already paid for, thank you.

    Either way, it's ALL business.

  • isodev6 hours ago
    Tech companies shouldn’t be able to do surveillance.
  • SeriousM2 hours ago
    The problem is not that tech companies can be forced to do bad, it is that government entities are able to do so.

    This is quite the same discussion like players shouldn't cheat, yet it's not the fault of the game but the player that is behaving wrong.

    So search the responsibilities on the acting side.

  • nzeid6 hours ago
    Agree but a terrifyingly large number of tech companies have garbage security so the bullying is often unnecessary.
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • givemeethekeys3 hours ago
    The Patriot Act and Data Analytical Services (DAS) program among others are examples of the government using surveillance as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

    What would you do if you were a government in-charge of keeping a country full of independent thinkers safe from themselves?

  • browningstreet7 hours ago
    Hegseth & Co. has Grok but they actually want Claude. Elon hates Anthropic and.. well.. Hegseth has the power to put the hurt on them.

    Anthropic opened themselves to this disaster by making that first contract with the military.

    I don’t want them to lose this battle but it’s also one they brought upon themselves by stepping into that arena.

  • linksnapzz6 hours ago
    Neither should banks, but that ship has sailed.
  • dackdel4 hours ago
    I think they are paid & bribed into it, not bullied.
  • politelemon3 hours ago
    This post makes me wonder if the EFF are adopting a deliberately obtuse stance. The tech companies that dominate the landscape have gotten to their lofty heights on the back of surveillance, which is being ignored here. The only difference is where the information is flowing. Their energy would be better spent convincing Google, Apple, and Microsoft to not become the gatekeepers of said information. Sadly it's our own years of encouraging and going to bat for these same companies that make us complicit.
  • ReptileMan2 hours ago
    I don't think that there ever was big tech company bullied into surveillance. They do it on their own volition. The tech companies said to the users - all your data is belong to us. The US said the companies - all your data is belong to us. It is amusing.
  • 2 hours ago
    undefined
  • mcs52805 hours ago
    Imagine a world where businesses considered the morality of their decisions instead of just maximizing profits
  • camillomiller7 hours ago
    Well, it seems they don’t need that much bullying. They are absolutely happy to contribute if it means favors, no tariffs, more profit etc
  • deadbabe6 hours ago
    If they give in I will cancel all Anthropic subscriptions and never use anything created by them again. Recent versions of Claude were getting shitty anyway, I could go without it.
    • metadat6 hours ago
      All other foundation model providers already caved (OpenAI, Google).
  • ChrisArchitect6 hours ago
    Related:

    Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47140734

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47142587

  • gaigalas6 hours ago
    Totally agree with the statement: Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance.

    I would personally add "bullied, coerced and/or gaslighted into doing surveillance".

    I don't understand why the US government is doing this though. Wouldn't it be much easier to do use some of the already passed laws on foreign intelligence to open a surveillance data pipeline? You know, like PRISM.

    I mean, this is inconsistent with the previous M.O., and highly unusual.

    I also feel very conflicted to suddenly have to "defend Anthropic", a company that has been systematically doing evil things (destabilizing markets, promoting misleading media campaings, etc). I don't want to defend those guys.

    Can I just dislike both the US military and Anthropic at the same time, and say there are no good guys here?

  • SanjayMehta7 hours ago
    "Tech companies shouldn't be bullied into doing surveillance for the govt."

    FTFY

    They're going to spy on you regardless.