The judge says that the Chatgpt claim to save chat records is not a “collective monitoring program”

Openai and some of its users objected to an order from the court that requires the company to maintain all Chatgpt chat records as part of a lawsuit for continuous copyright rights, claiming that adhering to these records is a “collective monitoring program worldwide.” The court has not been transferred. Judge Ona Wang, who initially issued an order to keep all data from popular Chatbot, refused multiple requests to cancel the decision – although Openai pledged to continue to fight the matter, According to Ars Technica.

Attempts to end the continuous preservation of chat records and data from Chatgpt users. The first was foot By a business owner who uses Chatgpt in the workflow of his company and claimed that it is likely that he will display “secret business operations, commercial secrets, source code and intellectual property developments.” Wang rejected this claim on the basis that the company had not employed a deposit formulation lawyer, For all ARS Technica.

last to request To decline the requirements for storing user records came from a user who claimed that he was “sometimes” very personal and commercial information “while using ChatGPT. The user claimed that the storage order all records would create” a collective monitoring program worldwide “, and it is possible that” all Chatgpt users “who were not aware that their messages will be kept.

Judge Wang has not been transferred from that, too. “The proposal interference does not explain how the order to retain the document of the court that directs the preservation of some private and documented data and retains it by a private company for limited litigation purposes, or it can be a” collective monitoring program at the country level “,” books In response to the claim.

Wang’s argument is mainly that although her request requires Chatgpt to stick to everything, including deleted chat records, this does not mean that it will all be published. Instead, it is kept for this particular situation and will be used only in relation to it, and Openai is expected to continue to fight the matter as the issue advances forward.

But at least, the ruling should be the heads of Chatgpt users and other chat: Do not guarantee your conversations to be private. Although at least one user tried to explain that the judge’s matter creates a collective observation network, it may be useful to consider that this is the technology that created this possibility, not the matter.