logoalt Hacker News

satvikpendem • yesterday at 9:13 PM • 3 replies • view on HN

> but it's not free to then claim the company that offered those terms is a security risk, and bar any DoD supplier from using them for any purpose

Just because you disagree with a power of the government does not mean the government does not have that power.

Replies

godelski • yesterday at 10:46 PM

  > Just because you disagree with a power of the government does not mean the government does not have that power.
Sure, but we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The government doesn't just get to do whatever it wants. People and corporations have certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is not being compelled to work with the government. The government can't force a company to work for them except under extreme circumstances. Which currently no extreme circumstances have been claimed and no one is talking about nationalizing (the act of forcing the company to work for the government) anthropic
➕ show 1 reply
tsimionescu • yesterday at 9:23 PM

Sure, but also just because Congress gave the government a power to take an extraordinary measure in an extraordinary circumstance doesn't mean that the government can simply claim the circumstance happens all the time and use the measure whenever it strikes the fancy of some executive.

Ultimately whether Anthropic is a true supply chain risk for the United States military is a question of fact, and the courts will have to decide. That the President or Secretary of Defense doesn't like a company doesn't make them a supply chain risk.

➕ show 1 reply
kelnos • yesterday at 10:02 PM

Well, that's what this court case is about. The government believes they have that power, and Anthropic and others believe they don't. You clearly believe they do, and I clearly believe they don't. It's fine to disagree. Ultimately SCOTUS may decide on this, and that'll be the final word. Not that SCOTUS is always correct in its rulings, but at the end of the day, their decision is final.

➕ show 1 reply