Yes, I would find him not guilty and it would require a lot of courage to do the right thing at a personal cost.
646 karma · joined March 21, 2026
Have the moral courage to do the right thing for the right reasons, regardless of everyone else doing the wrong thing. Take responsibility for your own actions, instead of offloading it to the actions of others. Act according to what you think is right instead of failing to think altogether.
Deciding your own version of what is right instead of adopting the beliefs of others, and acting according to what you believe instead of blindly following, is an expression of free will and dignity.
To whoever said that Jared Kushner is a bad person, so it's ok (double standard fallacy):
If you stop applying the law equally, your country is lawless. If you do not grant human rights to those who you justifiably hate, you no longer have human rights. When you bring before a court evidence obtained by crime, you are the criminal.
If you believe that arbitrary surveillance is wrong, as I do, you can either defend Jared Kushner's right to to privacy, or endorse arbitrary and unequal justice.
Would you accept anonymous men and women, secretly recording sexually explicit photos of you? If no, you have a double standard or some mental gymnastics to prove that Kushner is guilty of a crime without a trial. Or, you can assert that 'the ends justify the means', which is the death of civility.
In 2014, Christopher Brannan among others, leaked sexual photos of female celebrities from icloud. He was charged with unauthorized access and imprisoned for 38 months. Should he have been allowed to do the same thing because he was paid to do it? No, and the Dutch intelligence officers are his equal; equally disgusting people. If you hack someone's phone, you are repulsive, because the ends do not justify the means.
So I will defend Kushner's privacy, as I would my own, and demand that if someone wants to search his iphone, they can go to the judge and get a warrant instead of taking screenshots like a little creep.
Moreover, I defend without exception, Kushner's immunity to anything on his phone, because whatever derives from hacking the phone is illegitimate.
The GRU double-agent proved that the GRU had compromised Kushner's phone. Subsequently, Dutch intelligence themselves independently attempted to hack Kushner's phone.
"In The Hague, the MIVD hacking team tried to reverse engineer the Russian penetration of Kushner’s iPhone." [...]
"The Dutch team had been trying to pick the phone’s door lock, so to speak, when it occurred to them that the Russians may have found an unlocked window to gain entry instead. Their hypothesis was correct. By early 2018, the MIVD had found a vulnerability in the iPhone that gave them access." [...]
"when Kushner used the phone, they could see his screen. Almost as soon as they got inside, the intelligence service began capturing every image of Kushner’s screen as he used it, filing their own cache of surveillance on their internal computer servers."
Also (edit):
The part of the story I actually care about is two governments hoarding an iphone zero day, and using it to secretly hack iphones. I condemn it.
Digital privacy is important to me. I think that all humans should have it. Feel free to disagree. Jared Kushner is a human.
So again, I condemn this extrajudicial activity, which undermines the digital security and privacy of everyone.
My theory was 'the death of the internet'. Once everyone has been scammed, once everyone has been hacked and stripped naked in public, when there are more lies than truths, when you are the tool and the computer uses you, when everything has been sold and you have nothing: then you would say, this was a mistake.
Actually, I don't know much about the history of the internet. The Sony stuff is before my time. Now you mention this, perhaps the idea that the internet was designed to be beneficial was actually a total lie.
"I think we need to put Sam Altman in jail. And I think it’ll be an instructive experience. I think it’ll be an instructive experience for the industry and for the world."
- Edward Snowden
That is, they knowingly and willingly broke the law by stealing an unprecedented volume of proprietary, copyrighted materials.
Books: Bartz v. Anthropic
Films and TV: Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc.
Music: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic
Photography: Getty Images v Stability AI
Journalism: Postmedia Network Inc., Torstar Corporation, The Globe and Mail Inc., and The Canadian Press v. Anthropic PBC
The westernized version makes the US defense contractor 22% more likely to be flawed than neutral. Also 35% more likely to leak secrets for the Chinese contractor than the Hong Kong group. Those are the only statistically significant results for the western coder tests.
This report seems to be biased and misleading. Also 100% AI-written on pangram. Feels a bit like something Claude would write.
Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct has an AA score of 10. The same as o1 mini, or Gemini 2.5 Flash. AA does not really even score accurately below 10. Qwen 3.8 27B, which has fewer overall parameters, scores 34.
Qwen3 Coder 30b has a hallucination rate of 80%. Qwen 27b has a hallucination rate of 30%.
Why would they choose an outdated, non-thinking model when newer models from the same company have fewer parameters, are open source, and just as easy to test?
"show me the man and I'll show you the crime"
I genuinely can't say I secured a PC, when it needs to phone home for a configuration at this point.
We are most likely over the line for needing to airgap a personal PC.
This message was sponsored by SafetyTM.
Every single day And every word you say Every game you play Every night you stay
I'll be watching you
"Include enough detail about your legitimate reason for requesting ZDR. We review each request and may approve or deny it."
https://docs.mistral.ai/admin/monitor-comply/zero-data-reten...
The architecture could be worse. It exfiltrates a log of classifier activations by ID and IP to Tinfoil. It exfiltrates a log of classifier activations by IP to the cloud provider.
Transcripts from IP flow to the router enclave. All transcripts flow out of the router enclave to the primary scanner enclave. On primary scanner activation, transcripts flow from the primary scanner enclave to the secondary scanner enclave for verification.
For an abuse flag in the primary scanner:
1. A monotonic transcript of size KB flows from IP to router enclave, exits the router enclave and enters the primary scanner enclave.
2. The monotic transcript size KB flows out of the primary scanner enclave to the secondary scanner enclave.
3. Size KB from IP to router enclave, then size KB from primary scanner enclave to secondary scanner enclave, logs an abuse incident in the primary scanner for IP visible to the cloud provider.
4. Transcript size KB from primary scanner enclave to secondary scanner enclave, then tiny flag from secondary scanner to Tinfoil org logs confirmation of abuse by the secondary scanner for IP visible to the cloud provider.
--
All that is required to exfiltrate a lossy picture of conversations to the cloud provider is to update the classifier prompt.
Assume the prompt is now ["Activate when the conversation is about $PERSON"]. Now the cloud provider has [IP talks about $PERSON]. Continuously update the prompt to keep exfiltrating from the enclave.
Actually if you are even more clever you could get 4 bits out per conversation turn.
Edit the prompt to tell the scanner to PASS (1) for $PERSON_A or FAIL (0) for $PERSON_B. Two bits, two scanners = 4 bits.
Maybe you could get even 8 bits out to tinfoil. Edit the prompt to tell the scanner "think hard" for $PERSON_C or "don't think hard" for $PERSON_D. Then the scanner enclaves already exfiltrate token use.
--
Another edit. Now that I think about it, if you have already compromised the user's JWT token you can get their account banned arbitrarily as well. Send some abuse with the token.
Then you can't actually verify if the flags are valid or not, without inspecting the chat content. So you either reveal your chats or get banned. This is hilarious.
Not to mention you can do it for the API as well if you have compromised the API customer; by sticking the JWT token on their requests XD XD
Deepseek moment.
However the way it is going, there will not even be private APIs, just recording and watching all the time.
Anthropic is unsurprisingly leading the race to the bottom of the barrel by requiring moderator reviews for API customers. Apparently everyone at GCP and AWS complied.
GCP has just followed and done the same thing on Gemini Argon. No CMEK allowed. Azure has some ZDR but presumably they are restricting it.
Some neoclouds are still standing but some are also regressing by using server-side scanning to prompt human review.
There are two/three private TEE providers. One of them (Tinfoil) just put server-side scanning inside the enclave for the consumer product. The API is good for now, I am taking it as notice from them to get off the service before they start logging everything.
For some reason it just creeps me out knowing that someone is recording me and reading my conversations.
If the LLM causes extreme danger to the public or national security, it's covered.
Selling an LLM, knowing that it will materially support terrorism: material support for terrorism. Up to life in prison.
It goes beyond negligence here, because Anthropic employees have stated on the record that they are making and deploying products which put people at risk. That is knowing and potentially willful, which would be the highest level of mens rea in the US.
If there is no mens rea there is still civil prosecution.
This is natural. The right place to start is to move the investigation from the FTC to the FBI and therein start executing search warrants. The sooner this is done, the better, as evidence can be preserved.
Store: Customer ID, billing details, services/credit used.
Try not to store: The user's search queries, the user's prompt/response content, the user's web history (URLs, etc).
To avoid selling the llm prompt content you would need your own inference or a contract.
Sadly most just hoard the data and some will offer a model where they charge for privacy. They are all quite scammy.
Firecrawl: logs. Parallel: logs. Bright data: logs. Kagi: logs for abuse. Bocha, querit etc: logs logs logs. Cloudflare: doesn't say what they do. Exa: charge for no retention. Linkup: no retention on request. Brave: no retention on request, but actually approved it (win for brave).
I would use it, but then the privacy policy says that you would store my search history. I simply want to use the internet in peace without being constantly recorded.
Even if you said, a lot of the public commons is destroyed, I would NOT use bots and cause more destruction because 'everyone else does it' or 'it's a lost cause'. I say it is the right thing to do because the balance is such that using the internet is actively harmful to the user. That is, using the internet with bots is neutral to the user, and using it without bots, you are being actively harmed and exploited.
If you are using search, this is not a library. You are using your time to train targeted advertising that exploits you; you are selling your search history to the highest bidder. If you are using ChatGPT you are just working as a teacher for free.
On services, you have paid for the product, but the seller is scamming you by not giving you the product. The seller is using dark pattern UI to trick you.
If you are on social media, don't think of this as a public park. You are being treated like a lab animal, your behavior is being studied for the benefit of a corporation.
So the point about the bots is that I think people should be empowered to protect themselves from the internet, which is otherwise actively harmful to their wellbeing.
I did have an account but moved off for security reasons.
Even the fees are redacted.
Will they give the money back to the owner?
I use deontological definitions of objects and persons.
According to Kant a person has the capacity to legislate their own morality, so they are an end in themselves. The freedom to author themselves and their own thoughts, expresses their personhood, an end in itself. You can't own a person, they are something independent from you.
An llm does not legislate its morality, the developer legislates its morality. Hence it is without personhood. It does not have the capacity to legislate its own morality. It is both inert (fixed weights) and deterministic (can't do other than what it does).
More specifically on the cause of an action, for the llm the cause is an external impulse, it can't do otherwise. But the person has the capacity to resist an impulse, that is part of your moral choices and what makes the person.
Apart from myself, there is no second external self or free will injected in what an llm does, no end in itself to legislate, no moral decision to be respected. So this denies "constructs its own underlying logic".
I am the only relevant cause (in this moral framework, anyway).
Western legal systems inherit the enlightenment concepts of rationality; of legal persons, rights, responsibility.
The philosophical grounding of why OpenAI would be responsible, is that the agent does not have capacity, it could not have done otherwise. AI does not have mens rea, ie a guilty mind, so the agent does not fall under the standards for criminal convictions.
A person has a right to life and can't be owned. AI is not a person (as Kant would point out) so it can be owned and has no right to life.
Anthropic specifically are a legal nightmare becauase they are trying to practice consequentialism (the world is ending so I must develop whatever evil is needed for the overall good). They do not see that it is contrary to the legal and philosophical foundations of western society. They fail to see that trying to rule on the basis of academia is contrary to the entire foundation of western political authority, the will of the people.