Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Mark's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
KeyJ

@static @NewtonMark So, according to your IT Security and Privacy policies, using a third-party cloud service for internal communication of trade secrets is fine, but using the data for LLM training is where you draw the line? Not gonna defend Slack's shitty move, but that reasoning seems to be a bit arbitrary too.

If you're handing over *any* amount of data to a third party, you can consider that data public. Even without LLM training stuff, there *will* be some kind of breach eventually.

17 May at 15:44 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mastodon.gamedev.place
2 comments
Ian

@KeyJ @static @NewtonMark there's a huge difference between handing over your data for storage and having your data actively scanned. Not to mention it's on by default and opting out is a high-friction affair.

17 May at 20:36 | Open on hachyderm.io
Briala

@KeyJ @NewtonMark It's a balance-of-probabilities thing as to whether internal company traffic traversing a third-party service might ever be subject to a security breach. Companies like Slack sell their services on being secure and private. They don't want a breach; their customers don't want a breach.

This LLM thing is quite different. For a start, it is quite deliberate. Secondly LLM training is explicitly mentioned in the policy. We're not forbidden to use them, but sending confidential data to them requires approval. That's the sort of conversation that will be happening now.

@KeyJ @NewtonMark It's a balance-of-probabilities thing as to whether internal company traffic traversing a third-party service might ever be subject to a security breach. Companies like Slack sell their services on being secure and private. They don't want a breach; their customers don't want a breach.

17 May at 22:29 | Open on aus.social
Go Up