173
You mean I shouldn't sign up for an account with somebody else's chatbot using credentials traceable to me and confess crimes to it?
This is why I only confess my crimes to my local LLM.
What's the name and IP of your LLM? I also want to confess some crimes.
It's at http://127.0.0.1:5001/. It's my sex box, though. And her name is Sony.
Lol. LMAO, even.
FBI: No, it's fine, they have a privacy policy.
Now, if your lawyer (because they fired their paralegals) asks ChatGPT something while working on your case, can their queries be used against you?
Probably not, but the false case citations that it gives you back can get you in trouble with the court if you don't double check them. This keeps happening, even though every lawyer in the country should have caught wind of the first guy who got sanctioned for it. Seriously, are there no trade publications for the legal profession? I read up on all kinds of gotchas to avoid in my industry (tech).
Very good point. It seems crazy that this keeps happening, right? My current favourite hypothesis is from "Power and Progress" by Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson:
If everybody becomes convinced that artificial-intelligence technologies are needed, then businesses will invest in artificial intelligence, even when there are alternative ways of organizing production that could be more beneficial.
Add to that sunk cost (these firms invested in this tech, and maybe fired the paralegals that used to do this work, so they need to use the tech), and fundamental attribution error (those other lawyers failed using AI because of something fundamentally a part of their selves, I am only fail when there are external factors getting in the way of my self) and you get a recipe for seemingly irrational behaviour on repeat.
I would imagine that the same is true of search engine queries, and the collection of search engine queries is gonna be a lot larger than ChatGPT prompts.
I've seen articles mention search history as evidence for years, so no need to imagine.
I would mention that I use Kagi as a search engine, which doesn't retain search queries (outside a subset for a limited period of time, like a percentage retained for 7 days to counter DDoS attacks). They also have functionality to let people
people who are more paranoid than I am
pay anonymously via cryptocurrency and use search tokens that don't link individual searches to each other.
Maximizing anonymity with Kagi
We strive to give our customers the possibility to maximize their anonymity. Users who want provable anonymity guarantees may access our service by:
- Creating an account with a pseudonymous email address
- Paying for their plan using cryptocurrency
- Accessing our services via Tor service
- Anonymously authenticating using the Privacy Pass protocol
https://blog.kagi.com/kagi-privacy-pass
In general terms, Privacy Pass allows “Clients” (generally users) to authenticate to “Servers” (like Kagi) in such a way that while the Server can verify that the connecting Client has the right to access its services, it cannot determine which of its rightful Clients is actually connecting.
I'd also add that, search query and AI prompts aside, one's aggregate YouTube history is also likely to have privacy implications, as I expect that most people have watched a lot of content on YouTube and done many searches on it. In 2025, I can't suggest a reasonable, privacy-oriented drop-in alternative for that, though.
EDIT: Social media is its own can of privacy worms, but at least there people basically understand that they're putting content out there for the world to see, albeit maybe wanting to do so pseudonymously.
EDIT2: Actually, I haven't been using it, but Kagi does have a video search, and a bit of experimentation shows that it does appear to index YouTube. I guess I could use that to hide search queries, though obviously YouTube will still have a "videos watched" history, as one would still connect to YouTube for a video itself. And it's gonna come with some limitations; NewPipe and similar mobile clients don't have functionality to issue search queries to anything but YouTube directly, so one wouldn't be able to use a mobile client for searches. I also don't know whether they permit filtering on everything that YouTube does (or, if they index multiple video sources, whether it's even possible to filter things on all those criteria; different video services may not expose the same information).
EDIT3: It also appears to only return 48 results per search, unlike YouTube's search Web UI, where I believe that you can just keep paging through more results as long as you want.
EDIT4: Ah, they show what they index in the search options, since they let you choose which source the videos are from. Apparently it's YouTube, Vimeo, TED, TikTok, Twitch, Daily Motion, and PeerTube. Huh. I didn't even know that it was possible to search Vimeo at all. Last time I went looking for a YouTube alternative, I remember looking at it, seeing that the main page had no search form or list of videos, and thinking that there wasn't any way to search it at all.
Startpage doesn't track, and you can view result pages via their anonymous proxy. Use that with tor or a VPN and you're set. YouTube doesn't like startpages anon proxy though.
Duckduckgo doesn't track either, and you can view youtube videos in ddg's site.
https://www.startpage.com/en/privacy-policy
https://duckduckgo.com/privacy
Using a search engine for an answer now could get you in that same trap then no? Even DDG has an AI answer generated automatically.
We didn't need AI for Google search queries to show up in murder cases where people searched for how to clean blood / dna with bleach, how to dispose of bodies, and other really stupid questions. From their home computers. Pretty much right around the time that someone close to them went missing. It's all timestamped.
Wow. People really have become stupid. Asking an AI for help in medical and legal questions is among the dumbest thing one can do.
Accidentally doomed yourself, as opposed to intentionally doing it by getting legal advice from ChatGPT in the first place.
Dear ChatGPT, I want to build a spaceship fleet and conquer the Andromeda galaxy and use it to power my AI data center. Can I get in trouble for that? Thanks. Sincerely, LLMAO.
This has been the case for a long time. Plenty of folks have had search history used as evidence.
Sensationalism at its best.
Yeah, this was famously a huge part of the Casey Anthony trial.
If you committed a crime and confessed. gPT didn't fuck you. You fucked yourself up. Asking Google would have been just as bad.
Ew, Theo Von
"Dear ChatGPT. I killed a hooker. What are the best ways to dispose of the body? And while we're at it, can you please give me tips on how to avoid getting caught trafficking meth? Thanks so much!"
-People who deserve to get caught.
…In Minecraft.
Rapp Snitch Knishes by MF DOOM comes to mind
Rap snitches, telling all their business Sit in the court and be their own star witness "Do you see the perpetrator?" "Yeah, I'm right here" Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years
Love that song!
According to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman
Why would I care about Altman's opinion on this?
Because he's the one handing over conversation records to the police.
In this case, he's right.
So? He's not a lawyer. If this is obvious to non-lawyers just say it. Or do they have to report everything he says on any topic?
"According to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman pizza is good!".
If this is obvious to non-lawyers just say it.
That's what he did.
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
173 points (100.0% liked)
News
31365 readers
3057 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS