Why not discuss the I-D itself. Many drafts are garbage but simply being a draft does not by itself tell us about its likelihood of becoming an RFC or standard
"Founded in 1998, One Communications Ltd. (formerly KeyTech Limited) is a diverse telecommunications holding company. Its subsidiary companies specialise in cellular voice, high-speed internet, subscription television and data solutions for both residential and corporate customers.
In 2014, One Communications Ltd. began a series of strategic mergers and acquisitions in order to position itself competitively in an industry driven by technological change. The Company acquired internet, cellular and cable television companies in both Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. These transactions have transformed One Communications Ltd. into a robust triple-play service provider with the networks and data access infrastructures needed to meet the demands of ever-growing bandwidth consumption. Through its operating subsidiaries, the Company is positioned as the leading full-service telecommunications provider for corporate and residential customers in both Bermuda and Cayman.
The operating subsidiaries of One Communications Ltd. are Logic Communications Ltd. (trading as One Communications), Bermuda Digital Communications Ltd. (trading as One Communications), Cable Co. Ltd., and WestTel Limited in the Cayman Islands (trading as Logic)."
Why not discuss the contents of the draft and why it's awful. The fact that the author works for a telecom provider in a small country does not by itself mean much. Perhaps the proposal has been trialled there
I cannot find any promises in that document nor would I expect to find any. It's a policy not an agreement
At best, the policy contains "representations"
The author might claim he was deceived by misrepresentations, and this deception had consequences for him, amounting to measurable harm
But proving these statements about Google's internal operations are false is difficult. Proving Google's intent in making them is even more difficult
It's incorrect to interpret a "policy" comprising statements about what Google allegedly does internally as an agreement to do anything in the future
Promises can be enforced through the legal process. Generally, Silicon Valley's so-called "tech" companies do not make "promises" to users that can be enforced. Imagine what would happen if they did
"Google promises that it will notify users before their data is handed over in response to legal processes, including administrative subpoenas."
Where?
The policy does not contain the word "will" and makes no reference to what Google will (cf. "may") do in the future
The policy is comprised of statements about what Google has done in the past
The claims here are for deceptive trade practices, not breach of agreement (enforceable promise)
Google could agree, i.e., promise, to notify. It does not. Readers should ask themselves why
Instead Google states it typically notifies, i.e., has notified in the past, or may notify under certain circumstances
No doubt Google can show the statements in the policy are true at least some of the time. It is just disclosing what it has sometimes done in the past. Nothing in these statements binds it to doing something in the future. It could decide to change its procedures and update the policy at any time. It can also make justifiable exceptions at any time for any reason, irrespective of whatever it has done in the past
The "Guest author" of this EFF page should not be surprised when he/she is ignored by the Attorneys General contacted
Saw this exact claim on a billboard not too long ago
It's a strangely worded statement. What about data collection, metadata, other third parties
Maybe it's related to the fact that plaintiffs lawyers are now trying to verify what's going on inside Meta with WhatsApp through litigation discovery:
"Judge Rakoff issued an oral ruling that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine protected the AI-generated documents.12 The decision rests on traditional principles of privilege.
The attorney-client privilege protects (1) communications, (2) among only privileged parties, (3) made for the purpose of providing or obtaining legal advice.13 Importantly, the protection of the attorney-client privilege is lost if the communication is shared outside of the privileged parties.14 The party claiming privilege has the burden of showing that confidentiality was maintained.15 Judge Rakoff stated that the attorneyclient privilege did not apply because the communications were shared with a thirdparty tool that did not maintain confidentiality.16
Second, Judge Rakoff held that the work product doctrine did not protect the documents.17 The work product doctrine protects (1) legal work product, (2) discussing legal strategy, (3) prepared by or at the direction of legal counsel, (4) in anticipation of litigation.18 Judge Rakoff rejected Heppners arguments that the work product doctrine could apply because the AI-generated reports did not reflect the legal strategy of Heppners legal counsel, although they contained theories generated by the client and Claude.19 Since neither Heppner nor the AI tool are legal counsel, and Heppner was not working at the direction of Heppners legal counsel, the materials were not protected by the work product doctrine. Judge Rakoff noted that the AI tools disclaimer that users have no expectation of confidentiality also undermined the work product doctrine claim.20
12 Transcript of Pretrial Conference at 6, United States v. Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb 10, 2026).
13 See United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011).
14 See In re Six Grand Jury Witnesses, 979 F.2d 939, 943 (2d Cir. 1992).
15 See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated Mar. 19, 2002 and Aug. 2, 2002, 318 F.3d 379, 384 (2d Cir. 2003).
16 Tr. at 3, Heppner, No. 25-cr-00503-JSR.
17 Id. at 6.
18 See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 318 F.3d at 383.
No attorney was involved. An AI tool is not a lawyer. It has no law license, owes no duty of loyalty, cannot form an attorney-client relationship, and is not bound by confidentiality obligations or professional responsibility rules. Discussing legal matters with an AI platform is legally no different from talking through your case with a friend.
2
Not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Anthropic's own public materials state that Claude follows the principle of choosing the "response that least gives the impression of giving specific legal advice." The tool explicitly disclaims providing legal services. You cannot claim you used a tool for legal advice when the tool itself says it does not provide it. Claude's terms were specifically highlighted by the government, which directly undermined the claim that Heppner was seeking legal advice from the tool.
3
Not confidential. This is the finding with the broadest implications. Anthropic's policy expressly states that user prompts and outputs may be disclosed to "governmental regulatory authorities" and used to train the AI model. Judge Rakoff found there was simply no reasonable expectation of confidentiality. As he put it, the tool "contains a provision that any information inputted is not confidential." This is not unique to Claude. OpenAI's privacy policy contains comparable provisions permitting data use for model training and disclosure in response to legal process.
And the distinction between free and paid plans matters less than many assume. Both Anthropic and OpenAI use conversations from free and individual paid plans (Claude Free, Pro, and Max; ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Pro) for model training by default. Users can opt out, but opting out of training does not eliminate the platforms' rights to disclose data to government authorities or in response to legal process. Only enterprise-tier agreements (ChatGPT Enterprise and Business; Claude's commercial and government plans) exclude user data from training by default and offer contractual confidentiality protections. A $20-per-month subscription does not buy you privilege.
4
Pre-existing documents cannot be retroactively cloaked in privilege. The AI-generated documents were created by Heppner before he transmitted them to counsel. Sending these unprivileged materials to his lawyers after the fact did not retroactively make them privileged.
Implications for waiver of privilege
Heppner fed information he had received from his attorneys into Claude. The government argued, and Judge Rakoff agreed, that sharing privileged communications with a third-party AI platform may constitute a waiver of the privilege over the original attorney-client communications themselves. The privilege belongs to the client, but so does the responsibility to maintain it."
"Privacy policies, including the one on Claude's website, openly inform users how their data is used. However, very few users actually read the fine print on these privacy policies, or even know these policies exist in the first place. It would probably surprise most people to learn that Claude's privacy policy explicitly gives its parent company, Anthropic, the right to disclose a user's data to third parties in connection with legal disputes and litigation."
What's the definition of "operating system provider"
The binary distribution operating systems provided by so-called "tech" companies all suck anyway
I prefer to compile the operating system from source. I can add or remove any code I want. Will the nonprofit open source projects distributing the source code that I use be "operating system providers" under this legislation. That would seem pointless
""Homelab is becoming a thing even for people who never had experience with computer, people hosting their own documents, movies, music, backups in case things go bad."
Does the term "hosting" come from "web hosting" or some earlier terminology
Does the term "hosting" in the "homelab" context mean storing data locally on own computers, or running locally stored programs
If yes, could the the term "storing" be used instead
If no, then why is "hosting" the term used
This is sort of rhetorical question. I think I know why but I'm looking for clarification
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/16/ai-use-gen-z-college-jobs-f...
reply