alt Hacker NewsOn what legal footing does this recap feature stand? In fairly certain there are a non-zero amount of laws prohibiting audio recording without consent. And this wrist mounted always listening thing is likely to end up in a lot of places it should not. Probably burried in the end user agreement that it is 100% the users fault.
Replies
> On what legal footing does this recap feature stand?
It's not a crime if you do it with AI.
Instant in-memory transcription likely isn't legally considered the same as storing the actual audio. It probably couldn't be used as proof in a court like audio could (for now...).
It produces "high level summaries" so it's perhaps legally akin to note-taking rather than audio recording?
It isn't recording or storing audio, so laws against audio recording don't apply.
I am not sure who and why came up with this looks like a mass surveillance to me.
I imagine it was ran past their likely large legal department.
I was saying the same to my friend.
PA has very strict two party consent wiretap laws I'm not sure this feature would clear.
IANAL but my guess is that they're leaning heavily into the fact that the feature just generates transcripts and does not persist any audio recordings.
Yes, many states in the U.S. have recording laws that prohibit only one party giving consent to record. Aka: I give consent but the other party may not in which case it could be illegal.
> In fairly certain there are a non-zero amount of laws prohibiting audio recording without consent
But it's not audio recording. It's a text (which is obtained from an audio by a not so accurate system and thus not admissible in court).