102
ChatGPT access to Apple Messages is dangerous and irresponsible (paulfwalsh.substack.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/privacy@programming.dev
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Somebody in a state that isn’t single-party consent sue over this, I’d be really interested in seeing how far that could go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not aware of any state that applies two party consent rules to written communications. As far as I can tell, state wiretap laws only apply to in-person or live voice conversations (like traditional phone calls).

    Oregon, for example, is a two party consent state for phone calls but single party consent for electronic communications. Same with Illinois.

    Connecticut and Montana don't apply two party rules when the non-recording parties are merely aware that recording is happening, and it seems like a pretty straightforward analysis that everyone knows that the other side keeps text messages on their phone, usually indefinitely.

    The nature of email, text messaging, or any other kind of written communication basically makes it impossible to expect the other side not to save a record of the conversation, because that's just how the technology generally works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I was curious if it would but it’s the stored communications act instead, which frankly seems a much better case anyways. Theoretically two party consent could maybe cover it, but the law is old and we have others that cover electronic communications anyways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    The federal Stored Communications Act is essentially one party consent. It primarily restricts the ability of a service provider (who isn't a party to those communications) to share things with law enforcement or with others, and governs the manner in which governments can compel disclosure of information about communications. None of it restricts an actual party to the communication, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    no, i dont think that applies..you have consented by sending the message. if person a sends a text message to person b saying bad things about person c. i am.pretty sure sibce you sent the message, person b can show person c. i think its because its written.

    then again, you can sue over anything. thats civil. (i just realized you said sue)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    In states without single party consent, both/all parties involved have to give consent to have their communications recorded. If one person consents for ChatGPT and the other doesn’t, then it would be a violation unless you specifically tell everyone that all messages going forward will be sent and read by ChatGPT.

    At least I’m relatively sure, but something about ChatGPT not being a sentient entity or something might invalidate it but it’s an interesting question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    That's not true whatsoever. The act of sending a text message is already creating a record on the other device – that's literally the entire point. You can't sue somebody in a two-party consent state because they showed their friend Kevin all of the text messages you sent them, and the same applies to feeding it straight into ChatGPT.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    But it is because by sending messages back and forth shows consent between those parties. If Kevin sees text messages that he was not supposed to and then uses that information for harmful purposes he could be found liable, as clearly that was not the intent or Kevin would have been told himself either in a group message or individually.

    It’s not just how the information is gathered but how it is used, and in ChatGPT’s circumstances there’s no other logical use for those messages other than monetization.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    You're making up ad hoc nonsense out of thin air. Literally nothing you're saying is true, and you can't will it into existence just because it's what you want to be true or because it sounds plausible to you. You've cited absolutely nothing to substantiate your point, and the onus is on you because you're the one saying it's against the law.

    Incidentally, you haven't even mentioned a state; you're just saying this is true in all two-party consent states, which is fucking wild and shows you have not the faintest idea what you're talking about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Looking closer it appears that this would probably fall under the stored communications act, since it relates to electronic messages not intercepted real time and no one has attempted to prove texts would fall under eavesdropping/wiretapping laws, presumably because they are covered under the SCA.

    That being said, under 18 USC 2702 “Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records” I think there’s actually a stronger argument under that law. You would either have to argue that ChatGPT is a provider or that they are an intended recipient, which goes back to my original point about all parties consenting to ChatGPT obtaining the content of their messages.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent