People can be really ignorant about technology. I’ve met people who were surprised that you could log into your email on another continent. She might have thought it was locked behind her password and as long as she didn’t submit error reports, the company couldn’t access it. I don’t know where the idea comes from, but I’ve met a concerning number of people who don’t know that most platforms can read direct messages sent between users on their platforms.

That she was just venting to something she mistakenly thought was impossible for a human to read.

Well yeah, but there are lots of situations where your intent with a threat matters. Saying “I’m gonna kill you!” to your brother when he throws a water balloon at you is rightfully not considered a legal threat. Saying “I finally bought a gun and I’m gonna kill you!” might fall into either category for me personally, depending on whether they had actually recently bought a gun.

I’m really not trying to be difficult here and I do absolutely see how this could be ruled a legitimate threat, I just don’t think it’s 100%. I’m leaning towards 80% (assuming she didn’t actually recently get a gun), given that this is Florida.

Regarding the diary, I was actually thinking of that exact scenario, with the stipulation that the diary is locked. I would be interested in whether that aspect of the law has been tested yet, but it’s probably not that common.

I don’t know if that was meant to reply to me, but I meant whether another human was involved in the training, not the threat. It’s definitely an imprudent thing to write, but I don’t know if a reasonable person would assume that another person would be able to read it. “Training” is a pretty nebulous concept, and the anthropic release doesn’t mention that humans are involved.

I’m not trying to say that this lady is making good decisions, but I probably wouldn’t vote that this was written so that another human might read it, if I were on the jury. Maybe my gut feeling’s off and everyone knows that training involves people (which I’m sure would come up during the trial), in which case I’d probably consider it a clear threat.

I appreciate the links! I still don’t think it’s a slam dunk either way, because even in Anthropic’s release, it never actually says that a human will be involved. “Training” could be anything, and while intent does not always matter, a threat is one of the few crimes where it really does.

That’s why I said she was probably SOL on that side, but the other requirement for it to be considered an illegal threat is less cut and dry

The article very much states that it is in fact illegal to write down a threat under Florida law.

I don’t know that that’s my read here. The emphasis on the below quote from the article is mine.

Heller faces a charge of making a written threat of violence under Florida law. Florida Statute 836.10 makes it a second-degree felony to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record threatening to kill or injure someone, carry out a mass shooting, or commit an act of terrorism. The communication must be made in a manner in which another person may view it.

It sounds like it’s not illegal to write the threat down, but it’s illegal to share it with others. If you do keep a private journal, or write your feelings onto slips of paper and burn them (idk if this is actually common, but it’s always been recommended to me after a breakup), that’s not illegal, even if you describe wanting to do something illegal. It’s the sort of hair splitting that wouldn’t normally be relevant, but could make a huge difference here.

Of course, she probably will be legally considered to have sent, posted, and transmitted it, so she’s SOL on that end, but she could credibly (imo) claim she was unaware that another person might view it.