Worth noting that the mass surveillance friction point is only about domestic mass surveillance. Thus, does Anthropic believes mass surveillance of non-Americans is just fine?
In practice, it’s harder for the US to do mass surveillance of and enforce its will on people outside of its territory. Presumably it would have similar qualms about the British government doing mass surveillance of citizens of the UK.
Do you think they would stop the US from sharing its mass surveillance of British citizens with the British government? Or allow another country to use Claude to conduct mass surveillance of Americans?
It seems pretty clearly no in both cases from my perspective.
The USG’s view is that mass surveillance of non-Americans is just fine, barring some specific agreement with the nation in question, and surveillance of Americans requires some sort of justification (like a warrant).
Worth noting that the mass surveillance friction point is only about domestic mass surveillance. Thus, does Anthropic believes mass surveillance of non-Americans is just fine?
In practice, it’s harder for the US to do mass surveillance of and enforce its will on people outside of its territory. Presumably it would have similar qualms about the British government doing mass surveillance of citizens of the UK.
Do you think they would stop the US from sharing its mass surveillance of British citizens with the British government? Or allow another country to use Claude to conduct mass surveillance of Americans?
It seems pretty clearly no in both cases from my perspective.
The USG’s view is that mass surveillance of non-Americans is just fine, barring some specific agreement with the nation in question, and surveillance of Americans requires some sort of justification (like a warrant).
Just because the USG argues something, people and companies do not need to agree.