The New York Times is firmly on the wrong side of privacy and its own history, with its recent demand that OpenAI retain all user logs indefinitely.

Background

The Times is engaged in a lawsuit with OpenAI over copyright issues, one of many involving the AI industry. Outlets like the Times allege that AI firms are blatantly violating copyright, both in training their AI models and in giving users the ability to easily recreate copyrighted content.

In the midst of its lawsuit, the Times successfully argued for a court injunction forcing OpenAI to retain all chats for Free, Plus, Pro, and Teams subscribers, even if they delete their accounts. Only Enterprise and ChatGPT Edu customers are exempt.

In a blog post, OpenAI explains the Times’ rationale:

The New York Times is suing OpenAI. As part of their baseless lawsuit, they’ve recently asked the court to force us to retain all user content indefinitely going forward, based on speculation that they might find something that supports their case.

Why This Is a Disturbing Precedent

AI has quickly permeated countless aspects of life for businesses, organizations, and individuals alike. There are numerous reports that people are increasingly looking to AI for questions about their health, insight on financial matters, and even using AI for advice on mental health issues.

In short, AI is quickly gaining access to people’s deepest, most intimate secrets. For many, the knowledge that they can delete their chat history is one of the appealing aspects of asking AI very personal questions.

With that ability removed, people’s privacy is now up for grabs.

Why the Times’ Stand Flies In The Face Of Its History

Essentially, the Times is arguing that, in the interests of protecting copyright, users’ private conversations and thoughts should be retained and be searchable indefinitely. They argue that the copyright concerns override customers’ right to privacy.

There’s just one problem: This is an extremely hypocritical stand for the Times to take, one that flies in the face of its editorial history, especially on the topic of privacy/security and encryption.

Law enforcement has repeatedly made attempts to force companies to break the encryption they use to protect customer privacy and security or, worse yet, to implement a backdoor that would give them access whenever they want. In each case, law enforcement agencies try to make the case that the need to fight crime, protect children, and thwart terrorism are more important than individuals’ right to privacy. Like many outlets, the Times has often highlighted the dangers of weakening encryption for all in an effort to catch a few.

Bruce Schneier writing for the Times in 2016″

“Even a highly sophisticated back door that could only be exploited by nations like the United States and China today will leave us vulnerable to cybercriminals tomorrow. That’s just the way technology works: things become easier, cheaper, more widely accessible. Give the F.B.I. the ability to hack into a cell phone today, and tomorrow you’ll hear reports that a criminal group used that same ability to hack into our power grid.

“The F.B.I. paints this as a trade-off between security and privacy. It’s not. It’s a trade-off between more security and less security.”

The Times’ Opportunistic and Change of Heart

Much like law enforcement agencies arguing against privacy and encryption when it serves their interests, the Times is suddenly arguing against privacy when such a position serves its best interests.

There is no denying that copyright, especially in the context of AI firms, is an important issue that must be urgently addressed. At the same time, undermining the privacy of countless individuals in the process is absolutely no different than forcing countless law-abiding citizens to give up the protection strong encryption offers in the interests of catching a few bad apples.

Times executives should be ashamed of themselves for selling out innocent users, undermining everyone’s privacy, and setting a dangerous precedent for the entire industry.