upvote

points

by firesteelrain2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby tsimionescu2 hours ago|
next
[-]
Of course they can. Any supplier is free to set terms for how their products are to be used. The DoD is free to not agree to those terms - but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk, and bar any DoD supplier from using them for any purpose - which is what the extreme measure they took represents.
reply
upvoteby satvikpendem1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk, and bar any DoD supplier from using them for any purpose

Just because you disagree with a power of the government does not mean the government does not have that power.

reply
upvoteby godelski26 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]

  > Just because you disagree with a power of the government does not mean the government does not have that power.
Sure, but we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The government doesn't just get to do whatever it wants. People and corporations have certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is not being compelled to work with the government. The government can't force a company to work for them except under extreme circumstances. Which currently no extreme circumstances have been claimed and no one is talking about nationalizing (the act of forcing the company to work for the government) anthropic
reply
upvoteby tsimionescu1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Sure, but also just because Congress gave the government a power to take an extraordinary measure in an extraordinary circumstance doesn't mean that the government can simply claim the circumstance happens all the time and use the measure whenever it strikes the fancy of some executive.

Ultimately whether Anthropic is a true supply chain risk for the United States military is a question of fact, and the courts will have to decide. That the President or Secretary of Defense doesn't like a company doesn't make them a supply chain risk.

reply
upvoteby satvikpendem1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure, which is why the judicial branch reviews such decisions, and has reviewed this one and has come to the conclusion that it was justified. Just because you don't like their ruling doesn't make it not binding.
reply
upvoteby tsimionescu1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Their ruling is not final yet, per the article. I'm also free to disagree with the correctness and propriety of a judicial ruling and believe it was biased (of course, I do have to still abide by it, to the extent that it applies to me in any way). That it's binding doesn't mean it's right and that it is in accord with the law and/or the constitution.
reply
upvoteby satvikpendem1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
A judicial ruling is by definition in accord with the law or constitution (because it literally becomes the law) whether you or I like it or not, if and until such a time as it is overturned.
reply
upvoteby kelnos1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No, I don't think that's correct. Humans are fallible, and just because a court says that something is in accord with law/constitution, doesn't mean it actually is.

That distinction is academic, of course, because when the courts decide a certain way, then of course that's how things will play out.

Well, except when the Trump admin ignores court orders.

reply
upvoteby kelnos1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Well, that's what this court case is about. The government believes they have that power, and Anthropic and others believe they don't. You clearly believe they do, and I clearly believe they don't. It's fine to disagree. Ultimately SCOTUS may decide on this, and that'll be the final word. Not that SCOTUS is always correct in its rulings, but at the end of the day, their decision is final.
reply
upvoteby firesteelrain2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk

Yes they are free to do that. You have to blame Congress for giving them that authority under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act and specifically 41 U.S.C. § 4713.

But Claude’s ToS didn’t prohibit use of Claude for sensitive military operation but it was coded to do so. It was part of the government’s evidence

reply
upvoteby tsimionescu1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No, they can only do that if a company is a true supply chain risk. Not everyone some idiot in the government doesn't like is a such a huge risk to the country that they can be banned from doing business with anyone doing business with the DoD.

Ultimately this is for the courts to decide, and the current decision is not final. And while the two Trump-nominated judges agreed with you, the other judge agrees with me - so at least we can say that neither my nor your position is legally absurd.

reply
upvoteby firesteelrain1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don’t use those words but I agree it’s unsettled.
reply
upvoteby kelnos1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Anthropic can’t dictate how the DoW conducts business.

Sure they can. The DoD is bound by terms of use and contract terms for any product from any company that they use. They don't get a special pass just because they're the military.

reply
upvoteby firesteelrain40 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I think you are latching onto terms that were not declared. This is covered in the Appeals court case.
reply