upvote
the courts interpret the statute, we have to read their argument where they explain why they think that's not the right definition to focus on. (the "adversary" is in section 3252, but they say that independently from that section 4713 allows determination of exigency.)

https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/09/26-104... see page 30

reply
Anthropic
reply
"risk that an adversary may" any of them.

China, Russia, Iran, come to mind.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Because those countries do not control Anthropic's products.
reply
Because it's incorrect.

Those are (arguably) adversaries but the actor here is Anthropic, which is not an adversary.

reply