the courts interpret the statute, we have to read their argument where they explain why they think that's not the right definition to focus on. (the "adversary" is in section 3252, but they say that independently from that section 4713 allows determination of exigency.)
the courts interpret the statute, we have to read their argument where they explain why they think that's not the right definition to focus on. (the "adversary" is in section 3252, but they say that independently from that section 4713 allows determination of exigency.)
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/09/26-104... see page 30
Anthropic
"risk that an adversary may" any of them.
China, Russia, Iran, come to mind.
[flagged]
Because it's incorrect.
Those are (arguably) adversaries but the actor here is Anthropic, which is not an adversary.
Because those countries do not control Anthropic's products.
2 replies →