It is the knock on effects which are important. The penalty announced by Hegseth was:
Take that, Trump
- Thread starter Justin Passing
- Start date
It is the knock on effects which are important. The penalty announced by Hegseth was:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,918
- Reaction score
- 6,314
- Country
You do understand this has not materialised?
'no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic'
The Facts on the notice have been reported:
The Department’s letter has a narrow scope, and this is because the relevant statute (10 USC 3252) is narrow, too. It exists to protect the government rather than to punish a supplier; in fact, the law requires the Secretary of War to use the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish the goal of protecting the supply chain. Even for Department of War contractors, the supply chain risk designation doesn’t (and can’t) limit uses of Claude or business relationships with Anthropic if those are unrelated to their specific Department of War contracts.
I know I've told you this before, but I thought it worth checking you understood.
Its also highly unlikely to stick:
Under the terms of Section 3252 and DFARS Section 239.73, a “Supply Chain Risk” designation requires a specific finding that “an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert” a covered system to “surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system,” a finding that would typically be supported by detailed reports from competent officials. Neither the President’s nor the Secretary’s social media posts indicate that such a finding was made.
Last edited:
I am fully aware that the scope and legality is disputed by Anthropic.
Hegseth hasn't said anything publicly yet to narrow the scope of his order. So, I am assuming that it still stands as written until we hear something to the contrary in public from the regime. That is the only logical interpretation.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,918
- Reaction score
- 6,314
- Country
They dispute that the department's designation is lawful, that aside they have stated the scope is narrow. This is because the legislation Section 3252 requires it to be the narrowest possible limitation.
So his statement if he intends to uphold it, will need to be done via other means which may result in lawsuits from other suppliers.
So his statement if he intends to uphold it, will need to be done via other means which may result in lawsuits from other suppliers.
I am aware of what Anthropic say. But we have not seen the letter. The regime have said something very different. If you were thinking of entering into a contract with Anthropic, how would you decide which is the regime's true position. That aside, wouldn't it be normal practice for the regime to clarify their position to avoid uncertainty.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,918
- Reaction score
- 6,314
- Country
Because other legal experts have commented. Additionally Google, Microsoft and AWS, have publicly stated they will not cease working with them. NVDIA has not said it will cancel the strategic ties. Thats about 10 trillion USDs worth of company backing them.