I shouldn’t need to get a lawyer or follow anyone’s advice. This is my private property. Remember, there’s no criminal investigation here. They’re even tying to assert rights over my browser cache.
The reason I might get a lawyer is because this isn’t about me. It’s about you and every other hacker that contributes to ML.
I’m trying to focus on the intellectually interesting parts of this, though. I wonder under what circumstances I became ensnared. It’s the first I’ve heard about any of it.
This is way more serious than FB serving DMCAs for LLaMA. They’re threatening serious consequences for not complying with their demands.
I’d like to treat this professionally, and push back to the extent we can.
Bingo. I’m weighing whether to start a fundraiser and counterpunch these people in court. But I’d only ask for money if there was a chance we could protect other people from this.
In this case, they seem to be acting within the bounds of the law. But can any random lawyer really remand access to every facet of someone’s digital life with no criminal investigation?
Yes. Once a civil lawsuit is underway, parties have the ability to compel other parties (even, sometimes, non-parties to the litigation) to answer questions, produce documents, and do all kinds of other things they might not want to do. There are various justifications but none probably would appeal to you right now based on how annoying it is to get a letter like that. Rule 34 of the various states’ (or federal) Rules of Civil Procedure is a good place to start learning about this.
Good luck, this sounds like an interesting situation.
Even if you think you don't need or want a lawyer, you need or want a lawyer. Simple actions that make sense to you can have huge negative repercussions. The law isn't something you can understand technically as a software developer/ML researcher.
There are many things we shouldn't have to do. But if we don't do, we place ourselves at a disadvantage, merely due to an adversarial/unfair system. Do you want to favor purity over reality? Then you will be frustrated, for reality cannot be denied.
Most certainly. I didn’t mean it like it was some kind of annoyance or errand. I will be getting one, and asking them whether there’s a basis to prevent this kind of abuse to protect other hackers.
You're being warned that you may be part of discovery procedures and that you have an obligation not to delete any relevant information. No idea how enforceable that is on you considering you are not a party to the case.
Exactly — if this is unenforceable, I’d like to punish them (to the extent I’m able) for breaching their duties. Running around threatening private citizens with damages for noncompliance is something that should be stopped.
And not for me; I’m not worried about this particular instance. I worry this might happen to a fellow hacker who isn’t positioned to defend their rights under law.
A legal hold applies to corporations, not individuals. If this was in the context of a business, I wouldn’t mind at all. But business have the corporate shield for exactly these reasons.
Whatever activity put you on their radar, they have no idea who you work for or if you were on the clock at the time. There's no penalty to them sending this to you and having it not apply. But if they don't send it to the right places, it hurts them later.
(I'm not a lawyer, you should talk to one, but as long as you don't go deleting stuff, in my non-lawyer experience, you might not need to talk to one yet.)
They're not asking you to 'do' anything, the opposite, they list items that you should not delete in case they are needed during the discovery process.
