16 ms·

People have plenty of conversations where if one party intentionally chose to record it, it would be big violation of trust. This is basically just "always on"

People have plenty of conversations where if one party intentionally chose to record it, it would be big violation of trust. This is basically just "always on" recording/transcribing that people have to intentionally remember to turn off, that's a pretty big difference.

wang_li 7d ago
And a crime in plenty of states. It shouldn't be, but it is.
shagie 7d ago
It's a 15 second loop of audio history. If you didn't record the bit a minute ago, it's gone. A short buffer is common with wake word audio processing.
- mikeocool 7d ago
  It also summarizes your full conversations.
  - nomel 7d ago
    No, that part requires intent, where you have to turn it on with the button. It was in the demo. Regardless, you'll be mortified if you search the app store for software or Amazon for hardware devices that do this! You can still pick up voice recorders at Staples, actually (I was surprised to see they still sell them, and they have weeks of recording time now, along with transcription software).
    - e28eta 7d ago
      One of the options was always on, or always on while in work mode. I’m curious if the lack of speaker identification is a privacy thing, or a technical limitation. It looks like it uses PCC, so it may run into usage limits
- vineyardmike 7d ago
  You missed the additional feature launch where they listen to your entire life and give you transcriptions and summaries. “Siri Recap” https://support.apple.com/en-us/148354 https://support.apple.com/en-us/148354
  - anamexis 7d ago
    > Siri Recap runs only when you choose. You can turn on Siri Recap in the Watch app on iPhone. When you turn it on, you can set a schedule based on time and/or location (for example, "only at work" or "never at night"), or you can manually turn it on and off. Across all these options, you can always turn it on or off at any time from Control Center. > Siri Recap and Live Rewind help jog your memory, not provide a detailed record. Siri Recap doesn't produce a transcript. It generates a brief, high-level summary — comparable to notes you might jot down after a conversation. Live Rewind shows a text snippet of what was just said in the last 15 seconds, so you can catch something you missed.
al_borland 7d ago
My hope is it’s off by default and most people choose to keep it that way. This featuring is undoubtedly to compete with, and crush, all of those stand-alone AI wearables that do the same thing. All those products failed, because people either didn’t find it that useful, or the creep factor was too high. I could see some scenarios where it might be useful. Being at a conference, for example, and having a summary of everything I heard in the various presentations. But at the same time, it feels like the people being recorded should have knowledge of, and give consent to, the recording.
- gumby271 7d ago
  What sucks is that if you've ever pushed back on the people that use those stupid AI recorders they'll insist they're not actually recording you, its just a transcript and summary, and somehow that's fine. I'm not looking forward to more people explaining that to me, especially hardcore Apple fans.
  - al_borland 7d ago
    Yeah, I had this happen last time I went to the doctor… one of the last places I’d want it. At least with the Apple one they talked about how it works and it’s not some random product off Amazon doing god knows what. My dad is probably the most likely person in my life to use something like this. I could see him sending me the summary of our dinner conversation or something, which would be very weird and off-putting. He has been very concerned about his memory as he ages, so I could see him using something like this to help with age related memory issues.
    - Grombobulous 7d ago
      The doctor is probably the best place for this technology so that you can actually talk to your doctor rather than your doctor half-paying attention while they try to input everything into their EMR system on the computer.
      - JoeBOFH 7d ago
socalgal2 7d ago
It's also a violation of law in some places. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632/
- rz2k 7d ago
  I think they gave us enough information to understand their legal strategy. They will argue that the watch has sufficient processing power to transcribe the text in real time, and a plain text transcript is not a recording. It likely stretches the definitions compared to what most people who do not want to be recorded think the laws should prevent, but on the other hand at least it couldn’t be used as legal evidence. It sounds intended as a memory aid, where passing a transcript for gossip purposes will hopefully be met with automatic skepticism as something that isn’t authenticated in any way and could be made up entirely. They probably spent enormous amounts of time weighing how much legal jeopardy it would create for their customers.
  - Barbing 7d ago
    I can’t tell how California law treats e.g. hitting the little microphone icon on the iPhone with the notes app open (realtime live transcription w/no recording that I know of) versus the voice memo app (illegal without all-party consent, as it creates a recording). The world’s fastest smartphone typist can do what the mic icon does. In, say, court, “look I typed this” & “look this was dictated” would seem to be just as trustworthy since either can be edited after the fact. And someone could type and say it was transcribed, or transcribe and say it was typed. Whereas the law doesn’t want us voice recording and having the actual (forensically provable? w/the right budget?) record, unless everyone agreed.
  - loumf 7d ago
    Contemporaneous notes are absolutely used in courts. That doesn't make these summaries illegal, but I can't see how they won't become evidence. They will be subject to discovery. The main argument against them being good evidence is if they are not accurate and the public (i.e. the jury) knows that.

wang_li 7d ago

And a crime in plenty of states. It shouldn't be, but it is.

shagie 7d ago

It's a 15 second loop of audio history. If you didn't record the bit a minute ago, it's gone. A short buffer is common with wake word audio processing.

mikeocool 7d ago
It also summarizes your full conversations.
- nomel 7d ago
  No, that part requires intent, where you have to turn it on with the button. It was in the demo. Regardless, you'll be mortified if you search the app store for software or Amazon for hardware devices that do this! You can still pick up voice recorders at Staples, actually (I was surprised to see they still sell them, and they have weeks of recording time now, along with transcription software).
  - e28eta 7d ago
    One of the options was always on, or always on while in work mode. I’m curious if the lack of speaker identification is a privacy thing, or a technical limitation. It looks like it uses PCC, so it may run into usage limits
vineyardmike 7d ago
You missed the additional feature launch where they listen to your entire life and give you transcriptions and summaries. “Siri Recap” https://support.apple.com/en-us/148354 https://support.apple.com/en-us/148354
- anamexis 7d ago
  > Siri Recap runs only when you choose. You can turn on Siri Recap in the Watch app on iPhone. When you turn it on, you can set a schedule based on time and/or location (for example, "only at work" or "never at night"), or you can manually turn it on and off. Across all these options, you can always turn it on or off at any time from Control Center. > Siri Recap and Live Rewind help jog your memory, not provide a detailed record. Siri Recap doesn't produce a transcript. It generates a brief, high-level summary — comparable to notes you might jot down after a conversation. Live Rewind shows a text snippet of what was just said in the last 15 seconds, so you can catch something you missed.

al_borland 7d ago

My hope is it’s off by default and most people choose to keep it that way. This featuring is undoubtedly to compete with, and crush, all of those stand-alone AI wearables that do the same thing. All those products failed, because people either didn’t find it that useful, or the creep factor was too high. I could see some scenarios where it might be useful. Being at a conference, for example, and having a summary of everything I heard in the various presentations. But at the same time, it feels like the people being recorded should have knowledge of, and give consent to, the recording.

gumby271 7d ago
What sucks is that if you've ever pushed back on the people that use those stupid AI recorders they'll insist they're not actually recording you, its just a transcript and summary, and somehow that's fine. I'm not looking forward to more people explaining that to me, especially hardcore Apple fans.
- al_borland 7d ago
  Yeah, I had this happen last time I went to the doctor… one of the last places I’d want it. At least with the Apple one they talked about how it works and it’s not some random product off Amazon doing god knows what. My dad is probably the most likely person in my life to use something like this. I could see him sending me the summary of our dinner conversation or something, which would be very weird and off-putting. He has been very concerned about his memory as he ages, so I could see him using something like this to help with age related memory issues.
  - Grombobulous 7d ago
    The doctor is probably the best place for this technology so that you can actually talk to your doctor rather than your doctor half-paying attention while they try to input everything into their EMR system on the computer.
    - JoeBOFH 7d ago

socalgal2 7d ago

It's also a violation of law in some places. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632/

rz2k 7d ago
I think they gave us enough information to understand their legal strategy. They will argue that the watch has sufficient processing power to transcribe the text in real time, and a plain text transcript is not a recording. It likely stretches the definitions compared to what most people who do not want to be recorded think the laws should prevent, but on the other hand at least it couldn’t be used as legal evidence. It sounds intended as a memory aid, where passing a transcript for gossip purposes will hopefully be met with automatic skepticism as something that isn’t authenticated in any way and could be made up entirely. They probably spent enormous amounts of time weighing how much legal jeopardy it would create for their customers.
- Barbing 7d ago
  I can’t tell how California law treats e.g. hitting the little microphone icon on the iPhone with the notes app open (realtime live transcription w/no recording that I know of) versus the voice memo app (illegal without all-party consent, as it creates a recording). The world’s fastest smartphone typist can do what the mic icon does. In, say, court, “look I typed this” & “look this was dictated” would seem to be just as trustworthy since either can be edited after the fact. And someone could type and say it was transcribed, or transcribe and say it was typed. Whereas the law doesn’t want us voice recording and having the actual (forensically provable? w/the right budget?) record, unless everyone agreed.
- loumf 7d ago
  Contemporaneous notes are absolutely used in courts. That doesn't make these summaries illegal, but I can't see how they won't become evidence. They will be subject to discovery. The main argument against them being good evidence is if they are not accurate and the public (i.e. the jury) knows that.