Judge Says Requiring ChatGPT to Save Chat Logs Is Not a ‘Mass Surveillance Program’

Openai and some users protested against the court’s decision, which require the company’s Chatgpt’s conversation records indefinitely protected by the company’s Chatgpt, organized the “National Mass Control Program”. The court was not transported. The judge who first ordered to protect all the information from the famous Chatbot, Wang rejected more than one request to cancel the decision – promised to continue the fight against Openai, According to Ars TECHNICA.

Attempts to end crack notes and information continued protection came from two ChatGPT users. Was the first whole Let the company know by a business owner using CHATGPT and “Confidential operations, trade secrets, source code and intellectual property of the order” will potentially expose the development of the order within the workflow. WING rejects the claim due to the fact that the company’s lawyer was not hired, Each Ars Technique.

Another desire To retrieve the requirements to save the user notifications, ChatrEct sometimes said that a user who claims “highly sensitive and commercial information” during the use of Chatgept. The user claims that the order of maintaining all records will create “all Chatgpt users”, which will create a “national mass control program”, which will be stored, will potentially harm.

The Judge Wang was not transferred. “The proposed intervention can be a special information, separation of the court, and special information established by a private company established by a particular company or ‘National Mass Control Program’ write in response to the claim.

According to Wang’s dispute, hanging on everything, including deleted conversation records, does not mean that all will be announced. On the contrary, it is stored for a special job and is expected to be used only in this regard, and Openay is expected to continue to fight for the case.

However, at least, the judgment should be guided by ChatGPT and other chatbots users: Your conversations are not guaranteed to be private. Given that the case, which is not the command of a judge, which generates a mass control network, the provider, which is not the case, it may be worth thinking that it is not an order.