Anthropic Denies Federal Agencies Use of Claude for Surveillance Tasks

Anthropic has declined requests from federal law enforcement contractors to use its Claude AI models for surveillance activities, deepening tensions with the Trump administration, Semafor reported Wednesday, citing two senior officials. The company's usage policies prohibit domestic surveillance, limiting how agencies including the FBI, Secret Service, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement can deploy its technology. While Anthropic maintains a $1 contract with federal agencies through AWS GovCloud and works with the Department of Defense on non-weapons applications, administration officials said the restrictions amount to making moral judgments about law enforcement operations.

And in completely unrelated news...

[Koreantoast]

And in completely unrelated news, ICE raids Anthropic's headquarters to verify visas of its foreign-looking workforce.

Well, to be honest...

[nightflameauto]

While Anthropic maintains a $1 contract with federal agencies through AWS GovCloud and works with the Department of Defense on non-weapons applications, administration officials said the restrictions amount to making moral judgments about law enforcement operations.

Shouldn't somebody? I mean, clearly, the administration isn't going to, even though that's supposed to be part of their job.

Re:

[Stickboy75]

Shouldn't somebody? I mean, clearly, the administration isn't going to, even though that's supposed to be part of their job.

A good question. Even if the answer was 'no' (it's not), it's Anthropic's prerogative to make moral judgments if it wishes regarding the use of its technology. It's called a "License Agreement".

Profits vs Security

[Unpopular Opinions]

Got it. Until states subcontract access for this information via someone else willing to be the middlemen for a fraction of what Anthropic would ask governments. In the end, profits won again

Its their company they can do that

[FunOne]

What's wrong with a company making a moral judgement on how its product is used?

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

Would you agree that certain people *should* be surveilled?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Trump doesn't want to be surveilled, he's got too many crimes on the go at any one time.

Re:

[GlennC]

Nothing, until the customer (in this case, the current regime) decides that the company is no longer entitled to its moral judgement.

Re:

[greytree]

What the flip ?

Slashdot FIXED the headline !

Well done !

Taking the bait

[medusa-v2]

One of the officials said Anthropic’s position amounts to making a moral judgment about how law enforcement agencies do their jobs.

That quote was probably included to get the exact reaction I'm going to give, and I'm good with it. Set aside anything else Anthropic might do later.

Moral judgement is what we're supposed to do. When the friggin' AI companies think you've taken the quest for power and surveillance too far, you're in a very bad place.

Re:

[nightflameauto]

When the friggin' AI companies think you've taken the quest for power and surveillance too far, you're in a very bad place.

Preach.

The moment where an AI company says, "Eh, boss? That may be a touch sketch for us," should make any real human scream in terror. Our government? "Heh, do it anyway. Come on. You know you want to."

Futile and symbolic gesture

[MpVpRb]

There are lots of others who will take the money for anything, no matter how evil

Re:

[organgtool]

This is one of the oldest rationalizations for shitty behavior: "if I won't do it, somebody else will anyway". And that may be true, but why compromise your own principles and contribute to moral decay based on an assumption which may not even turn out to be true? If someone else wants to be an asshole to make easy money, then it'll be their reputation they're flushing down the shitter. And if society holds those people accountable, fewer people will be inclined to engage in that behavior.

Re:

[smooth wombat]

This is one of the oldest rationalizations for shitty behavior: "if I won't do it, somebody else will anyway".

Yup, and it's used to this day to justify genocide [youtube.com].

Most of us know the companies w/o scruples

[atrimtab]

As would many other tech companies whose: "Job #1 is to make more $$$."

Is Mountainhead [wikipedia.org] a documentary?

We NEVER use Claude!

[nospam007]

Albeit, we use many Claudettes.

This is EXACTLY

[flippy]

the kind of freedom that certain people have argued that businesses should have, to pick and choose who to do business with, and what they allow to be done with their services/products. So, I'll suggest the administration takes the same guidance they are so willing to give to the public: don't like it? Do business with someone else.

Pot, kettle

[ThumpBzztZoom]

administration officials said the restrictions amount to making moral judgments about law enforcement operations.

So the National Guard deployments, maximized charges (that are being kicked out by grand juries), removal of prosecutorial discretion, allowance of racial profiling, language and accent discrimination in immigration enforcement, and recent arrest threats over free speech aren't moral judgements about law enforcement, or are they claiming that they are the only ones entitled to have an opinion?