OpenAI Shoves a Data Journalist and Violates Federal Law
aarongreenspan.substack.comWatching the videos on the article, and this journalist is coming off pretty arrogant.
Okay, I understand that you have a right to request those documents - but it's the day before Thanksgiving, and the right people aren't available. Yes, I get it - the law says "Immediately" if at the headquarters, but give some slack - it's a holiday. Come back on Monday.
The guy got shoved because he was repeatedly told not to be on the private property, and instead he decided to walk in - and then start claiming he's on the sidewalk (Which she, now they were). He was told he was trespassing, he refused, and they have a right to use reasonable force to remove him. Considering they did that directly in front of a police officer, I think highlights the OpenAI guy is fine.
This reeks of like "I'm right in one thing - so I'm right in everything". People are human man, again - come back Monday. Go enjoy time with your family and stop trying to pick a fight right now.
It's also worth mentioning that failure to immediately disclose said documents are... a $20/day fine [1]. A company being out of compliance does not give a civilian the right to trespass. The correct solution here is to raise a complaint with the appropriate authorities (the IRS), not to continue to remain on private property and have to be forcibly removed by the building's security.
[1]: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-...
This isn't quite right. Federal law requires that citizens be allowed to make requests in person. Trespassing is a state statute in each state. In general, federal law supersedes state law. Asking to see a non-profit's public records in person is not trespassing because it's expressly authorized by law.
That is unfortunately not how the law works. I am not a lawyer, but I have studied this a bit in passing. It's important to understand the interplay between the scope of the law, private property rights and also reasonableness. Although 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B) mandates that the documents be available for inspection and copying upon request, it does not say anything about allowing civilians to remain on the property beyond the reasonable scope of inspecting these documents. Generally, laws are interpreted in the context of what's reasonable. It's unreasonable to interpret 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B) as allowing someone to stay on private property indefinitely. If they don't have the documents available, and ask you to leave, private property rights apply here and you must leave. The penalty you can seek for non-compliance clearly defined as a $20/day fine, not that you can continue to stay on the property and repeatedly ask for something they do not have a day before a holiday. The Supremacy Clause does not apply here, because there's no inherent conflict. The federal law does not explicitly (or implicitly) state that you can stay on the property after asked to leave, and thus it cannot trump state law. The fact that the initial presence on the property was for a legal, civil purpose does not provide ongoing protection from criminal trespass charges if an individual overstays their welcome or refuses to leave when asked.
Happy to look at any legal citations to caselaw you have. But generally there's a difference between "stay[ing]" a prolonged period of time and being able to even get in the door to make the request in the first place, which is explicitly allowed by federal law. And the documents were available.
Right, but the penalty for non compliance here is a $20/day fine. No where does the law state that you're granted license to enter the building if they refuse you entry or deny your request. You made your request, they refused and asked you to leave. Your only valid recourse here is to file a complaint with the IRS and let them do their thing. Alternatively return after the holiday break when the office has the staff there that can fulfill your request.
Ironically, we don't know what the penalty for non-compliance is because we don't know the non-profit's gross receipts are for its most recent complete tax year. If they are over $1 million, which is plausible, the daily penalty is $100/day not to exceed $50,000. See 2022 Form 990 Instructions, page 81. Not that this really matters.
The crux of our disagreement is whether they have the right to refuse entry. They can [unlawfully] deny a request I suppose and just choose penalties over compliance, but when it comes to denying the ability to lodge a request in person with the associated "immediate" timeline, there are First Amendment interests at stake and I think the federal constitution, if not federal preemption, wins.
In this specific instance, it wasn't clear to me what, if anything, the security guard had done or intended to do with my name and ID information (which is not needed to file a request for tax forms). So I didn't feel as though a specific request had even been filed. He wouldn't provide his name, he wouldn't allow me to speak to anyone with any knowledge of the issue, and I had nothing in writing. From my perspective, OpenAI prevented a request from being filed after its accountants said that they had the documents but that the non-profit's offices were the proper place to lodge a request.
On top of all of that, the 2022 IRS Form 990 instructions (page 79) refer to "the room" and the requirement that the member of the public "must" be allowed to "take notes freely." Outside on the sidewalk is not a room where you can take notes.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-...
"What should I do if an exempt organization will not let me see its Form 990 or 990-T returns or exemption application materials?"
"Write to IRS EO Classification, Mail Code 4910, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242. Your letter should provide the name and address of the organization that refuses to allow public inspection or provide copies of its documents, and request that the documents be made available for public inspection.
"The Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division of the IRS will contact the organization and arrange a time during which the documents may be inspected. If the organization fails to provide the documents at the agreed upon time, statutory penalties may be assessed.
The IRS documentation also says to ask the "responsible person" so if someone approached the public office with the intention of interacting with the responsible person and they were unavailable, and the person spoken with essentially "took a message" how does that not basically conclude the submission of the request?
I also infer that the clock starts upon the scheduled viewing, not automatically once the request was made, but I could be missing a nuance.[1] Specifically, " Timely Response to Requests".
[1] https://www.stayexempt.irs.gov/se/files/downloads/Required_D...
You can start with Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid.
INAL but this really doesn't pass a sniff test, same with what the journalist is saying. If the people are gone they're gone. If you show up to a company at 1am on Christmas morning do you have a legal right to immediately get access to those records and enter the property? I would presume that there has to be a reasonable expectation. Now if this was Wednesday last week, the complaint sounds much more legitimate. Or if he's been trying several days and they told him "person will be back x date" and he comes back x date, yeah. But I'd actually be pretty upset if the legal system allowed unreasonable requests. Absolutely shady stuff is going down in OpenAI and I can absolutely understand fear that things will change as they get more time, but the consequences of unreasonable requests results in far more harm than any one company can do. Unless you're ultra Xrisk and think they're going to release paperclipping AI imminently. But then break in, get the proof, sort out the law later. You get that proof and you bet you'll have a lot of free money showing up for legal defense and a very sympathetic court who is going to learn about Jury Nullification. But if it's just about taxes? Chill. But again, not a lawyer and definitely don't know any law. This just does not sound right. It just sounds so much easier to get the video of them denying and take them to court and make them prove they had no one to give him the documents.
> the journalist
FYI you're replying to the journalist.
Smart, foolish, arrogant.
Officers handled it well.
I think trying to deal with big corporations requires being somewhat firm. This journalist looked like he was behaving well to me. He gave the guy his driver's license info after all. That's the opposite of shady.
Clearly these people at openai didn't know what to do. The company is in chaos, it's almost in dumpster fire territory at this time (is the ceo sam back, do they even have a CEO or other leadership still left, did the board quit, is there anyone on the board, are lawyers in charge there?). And it is the day before Thanksgiving. But many companies that don't want to give up required information would do similar things, like say I don't know, we don't have the right people here today to decide what to do. If you are a journalist you have to require fair treatment and politely demand what is legally possible. It's just what you do to succeed. Companies don't treat you like you are Ted Kopell and just hand it over.
It's the last thing anyone at openai wants to see, but it's what people have to do to get the facts. They don't usually post the videos where they get incorrectly refused maybe but this is an every day event for a journalist. Showing these kinds of videos shows what real journalists face every day. You think the person investigating say the public expense reports of a mayor just gets them without insisting? No, she does not, without being politely forceful.
For a non-profit the size of OpenAI to not file their Form 990 is pretty serious. They have over 700 employees, it's not like they are lacking in people or in money to do their paperwork properly...
I'm sure it's filed. They just refused to disclose it as required by law.
Didn't sound like they refused. The police officers said it themselves: It's the day before Thanksgiving.
Yeah - I get it, law says "immediately", but the journalist needs to chill and just try again Monday. It's a holiday week. Barking up the wrong tree.
Accounting firm acknowledged it could send the documents by e-mail but refused on the phone, said to go to the company's office.
Company wouldn't let me in the office, blamed Thanksgiving, and lied about the office being closed when it obviously was not.
We're talking about sending an e-mail with a PDF in the middle of a business day when employees were clearly at work in the office. That's it. E-mail can be sent from anywhere in the world. And the accounting firm was willing and able to send it, just not willing to comply with the law because its client said not to.
I don’t think it was obviously open - Just because it was staffed doesn’t mean it was a regular work day.
You’d have to read the law very closely but as someone who has had a trespassing ticket and even went to court, you will likely find no sympathy nor cure by trespassing, nor would the average cop care. I would not be surprised if the doorman telling you to fuck off was good enough to count as a refusal to provide documents, which would help your case down the road but would automatically place you trespassing
This is standard operating practice for shitty journalists to create smoke and generate attention.
Journalists suck. They're basically one step away from paparazzi.
Glad to see YC living up to its reputation. keep grinding, brother.
Let's assume everything the guy in the video (the self-anointed journalist) says is true and that OpenAI is required to "hand over" those forms to anyone who asks...
With that said it still doesn't mean that if don't do that that you get to shove your way in (or try to) and start yelling at people lol.
I'm sure the actual process is that if they are required to do so and do not then you a member of the public ("data journalist" or otherwise) can pursue legal action. The "I'm entering the property NOW!" thing is likely not codified into whatever law this guy is quoting. "If they don't turn it over you're allowed to invade the corporate HQ!" Doubtful.
You have it backwards. You have to be able to make the request at the offices in the first place. This is about OpenAI attempting to prevent an in-person request from being made, in violation of the law. No one was "invading" anything.
Other prominent non-profits do not seem to have this problem.
Okay but if the non-profit doesn't comply, again does that mean the person (who I guess I said was "invading") gets to start yelling and doesn't have to leave if asked to do so?
Anyone has a right to make a request of this type in person. Under the First Amendment and 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B), that means you have a right to stay as long as necessary to make the request for public records.
The only ones yelling were OpenAI employees and the company's security contractor(s).
Major 1st/2nd amendment auditor vibes. This is a non-story by someone seeking attention.
Update: ok, I skimmed the article and there's a lot more to it than what's in the videos. This is a non-story by someone with a vendetta. That money transmitter law is bullshit. Enforcement of it is bullshit. Sucks that you tried to do the "right" thing and follow the law, but it's probably best to just move on from that. What do you hope to accomplish by continuing to pursue this?
>That money transmitter law is bullshit.
That's what he was saying. And being under threat of prison doesn't sound fun, so he did the right thing to fight it.
Do you have any expert knowledge on the law?
Yeah I understand that that's what he did. That law killed local bitcoins. But to be so invested in going after people who maybe paid some officials off or just straight up ignored that law and built their businesses anyway seems like a waste of time. I don't go around outing the people I know who have engaged in illegal activity; it's weird and doesn't help anyone unless there's a victim.
No expert knowledge of the law.
>But to be so invested in going after people who maybe paid some officials off or just straight up ignored that law and built their businesses anyway seems like a waste of time. I don't go around outing the people I know who have engaged in illegal activity; it's weird and doesn't help anyone unless there's a victim.
I don't think it's hard to see victims in either case.
If Stripe violated laws to become a payment processor, then the victims are every other founder who would like to start a competing company but can't because they don't have the same political connections as Stripe. And the victims are most downstream founders who are stuck with the pitifully small set of available payment companies like Stripe.
If a company violates its responsibilities as a nonprofit, then it's unfair to US citizens who have a right to audit the financials. And it's unfair to other nonprofits who devote effort to follow the law if other nonprofits are allowed to outperform them by skipping legal responsibilities and making up for it in political connections.
I'm guessing they did file their Form-990 for 2022, but it's not available in public data sources yet. Probably will be available in a few more months.
OpenAI's Form-990s from previous years are all available at https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810...
Including their entire 2021 filing https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/810...
Along with the nice visualizations the site provides.
i'm really sick of people trying to pull the "journalism" card as if journalist is some protected class with special privileges.
every random annoying dude with a substack is a journalist. you're not special. and yeah, maybe once upon a time there was a legitimate reason for concern when people tried to suppress journalism. but now everybody is a journalist, and so there's no special privileges for journalism. if you turn up at a business and start harassing employees, expect to get shoved out the door, regardless of whether or not you have applied the "journalist" label to yourself.
Big crackpot vibes in here.
Same guy claimed to have invented Facebook. (Or some of its features? Wiki's a bit unclear.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.htm...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210121084819/https://gawker.co...
There was some kind of settlement eventually:
https://about.fb.com/news/2009/05/facebook-and-think-compute...
Assuming you've seen the prior years' 990s, do you have any explanation for the $70 million in "other income" that is lacking the required explanation of "nature and source" which represents more than half of the non-profit's reported support?
"it's a big club, and you ain't in it" - George Carlin
It must be tough for a person who's roommate in college went on to become a billionaire.
If the author is reading this, you’re posting videos and text together in a single article, making no attempt to describe the contents of the video.
There are reasons nobody does this.
Brief descriptions added. Thanks for the feedback.
At least this guy is being honest about the context:
> They are smart people. About that I have no doubt. But I’ve seen how they treat rules. I know what they think of ethics.
Also:
> I have never met Sam, and I have only met Greg a couple of times.
I'm just saying, breaking rules in business is not necessarily the same as being unethical. Especially financial/regulatory capture rules like it seems the author is complaining about.
Different things are at stake with AI, and I think we're all aligned.
> I'm just saying, breaking rules in business is not necessarily the same as being unethical.
Can you explain this?
When a company has unreasonable deadlines set by outside entities, breaking rules is a necessary part of functioning.
Is filing reports as a nonprofit an example of unreasonable expectations from the us govt?
To some, any expectations placed upon anyone (company or person) by the government is too much. Mostly people that haven’t progressed much after reading Rand in high school.
I ran a small business and had to get a couple licenses from the state. It wasn't difficult but it sure was annoying.
I guess that implies you are at openai, maybe not? What does it mean that different things are at stake with ai and that "we are aligned"?
This is like arguing that you’re a sovereign citizen.
What’s the end game here? Cops aren’t interpreters of the law, they don’t care about your statutes. And frankly, they could be out actually doing something instead of talking down knucklehead “journalists”
Kind of the opposite, unless you're referring to OpenAI?
Sovereign citizens claim to be independent of the laws of the United States.
This is a dispute about a company failing to comply with a specific law of the United States.