4 ms·
On 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
by robviren 9d ago
On 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.
- jdm2212 9d agoIt produces "high level summaries" so it's perhaps legally akin to note-taking rather than audio recording?
- al_borland 9d agoI wonder how long before we see how well these summaries hold up in court.
- robviren 9d ago[dead]
- CodingJeebus 9d agoIANAL 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.
- doublepg23 9d agoI was saying the same to my friend. PA has very strict two party consent wiretap laws I'm not sure this feature would clear.
- vulk 9d agoI am not sure who and why came up with this looks like a mass surveillance to me.
- al_borland 9d agoIt’s to compete with all the failed AI wearables with the same features.
- owldown 9d agoIt isn't recording or storing audio, so laws against audio recording don't apply.
- iAMkenough 9d agoTranscriptions count if you’re using them to intercept and record oral communications between others. The recording doesn’t have to be audio to violate the Federal Wiretap Act.
- Lio 9d agoThat really bothers me. It might be legal for Apple to do this but it's still creepy as fuck. They're still recording everywhere and sending a transcription to iCloud and they're doing it without consent. This has the same vibes as those Meta glasses. It's something that people will force on others.
- boxed 8d agoAren't you just confused about this whole situation? You do know that the human the watch is attached to has ears right? Which record and store the information? You have no expectation of privacy next to another human in public places.
- Lio 8d agoNo, I don’t think so. Human memory is well known to be unreliable. There’s a clear difference with “he said, she said” type recollections and what Apple is doing. People forget things and they get things wrong. There may indeed be no expectation of privacy in public but this still really creepy and slightly threatening. It’s always listening and allows you to go back without pressing record before hand. Now you have a potential written record of every off colour remark, joke and personal discussion you over hear. Maybe you think the world would be better if we all watch what we say in public further, I don’t.
- boxed 8d ago
- corvad 9d agoYes, 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.
- akmarinov 9d agoSeems like it’s not recording, you can’t access an audio recording. Just the output of what the AI thinks was in the audio Also Android has had shazam style always on music recognition for years now with no issues, this isn’t that different
- gumby271 9d agoThe Android feature is matching songs it hears to an on-device database of fingerprints, the other is recording, transcribing, and summarizing all conversations around it. Seems a little different.
- tenacious_tuna 9d ago> this isn’t that different It's entirely different. One is fingerprinting ambient audio against a corpus of known signatures to identify music, another is basically silently monitoring and summarizing every conversation it hears for later review. I don't feel like my privacy is being invaded by a date's phone telling them what song was playing at the restaurant, but I would be disturbed if their phone produced a summary of our conversation, especially if any vulnerable topics came up.
- gumby271 9d agoI feel like I'd also be a little weirded out to find my date referencing the summary or transcript later, maybe that's just me. Like if I said something personal and they whipped out a notebook and wrote it down real fast, that's unnerving.
- ngcazz 8d ago... but not particularly unfair on your interlocutor, just off putting
- tencentshill 9d agoInstant 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...).
- cael450 9d agoProbably not, but contemporaneous notes have their own value legally.
- havaloc 9d agoI imagine it was ran past their likely large legal department.
- FireBeyond 8d agoYou imagine so but it would be difficult to imagine a situation where Apple would be liable, so their level of concern would be much lower. Otherwise, manufacturers of digital voice recorders, etc., would also be fearful.
- mppm 8d ago> On what legal footing does this recap feature stand? It's not a crime if you do it with AI.
- 72deluxe 8d agoSad isn't it?
- arttaboi 8d ago> 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).
- strideashort 8d agoi know at least one eu country which ruled processing PII this way is not permitted without consent.
- arttaboi 7d agoYeap, probably EU's gonna be a different game for Apple Watch 12.