The linked article is making the point that the judge is claiming that they are preserving privacy with this order because they believe in de-anonymization of the data set. The judge appears to have no understanding of how re-identification works and the history here.

So while it's an interesting question about whether privacy exists, the point here is that it doesn't exist, but the judge is saying it does.

They were chats that were supposed to be private between you and OpenAI, concretely. Nobody, including OpenAI, expected them to ever become public.

Emails are also instructions to a computer-based service (SMTP) that you presumably signed your rights away to when you accepted the T&Cs.

Yet no one would think it's acceptable for the NYT and a dozen other news organizations to request an "anonymized" archive of all your emails from provider X, just because said provider is in a lawsuit with them, and you have nothing to do with any of it.

This is shameful, and would create a dangerous precedent. Really hope the order gets struck down.