Palisades Fire suspect's ChatGPT history to be used as evidence

Online histories as evidence

• Many commenters note there is nothing novel about using digital records (searches, Uber rides, Alexa audio, etc.) as evidence; anything not truly end-to-end encrypted is “fair game” with probable cause.
• Others emphasize that third‑party doctrine means most cloud data has weaker Fourth Amendment protection, though some companies minimize logs specifically so they have nothing to hand over.
• Some are fine with targeted warrants for specific suspects, likening it to searching a house. Others worry more about dragnet requests (geofence/keyword‑style) and corporate–state “collusion.”

Encryption, infrastructure, and retention

• Clarification that HTTPS to ChatGPT is not end‑to‑end encryption: intermediaries like Cloudflare terminate TLS and see plaintext; “end‑to‑end” would mean no party in the middle can decrypt.
• Encrypted data is still legally reachable; there are just fewer parties with keys.
• Commenters mention that ChatGPT data is currently under legal holds in other litigation, so even “deleted” chats may be retained.

Proactive monitoring and dragnet fears

• Some speculate about ChatGPT auto‑reporting “flagged” prompts; pushback argues intent is ambiguous (fiction, hypotheticals, jokes) and signals are noisy.
• Others note US providers generally must only report specific content (e.g., CSAM) and are not required to actively hunt for crimes, though some companies do heavy automated moderation.
• There’s concern that once the data exists, law enforcement will eventually use broad “find everyone who…” style warrants over LLM logs.

Media framing and this specific case

• Several point out the article’s framing (“ChatGPT history as evidence”) implies OpenAI “snitched,” while available information suggests investigators mainly used phone/ride records, and the suspect appears to have surfaced his own ChatGPT logs to argue the fire was accidental.
• Police also highlighted prior fire‑themed image prompts to imply motive, which some see as a stretch and an early example of how creative AI use can be spun as evidence of dangerous intent.

Privacy, trust, and AI as confidant

• Commenters stress that chats with AI are more like texts or emails than a private diary; they are loggable, retainable, and discoverable.
• Some are disturbed that people treat LLMs as therapists or intimate friends, creating highly incriminating, deeply personal records.
• Proposals include giving AI chats protections similar to attorney‑client or psychotherapist privilege; critics respond that LLMs are neither professionals nor truly “agents,” so existing cloud‑data rules should apply.

Responsibility and punishment debates

• A long subthread debates legal and moral responsibility if a deliberately set or reckless fire is reported, seemingly extinguished, then rekindles and causes deaths.
• Views range from “you remain responsible for all downstream damage” (arson, possibly felony murder) to “firefighters’ failure breaks the causal chain” and the suspect may be more negligent than murderous.