you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 60 points 1 day ago (14 children)

How does this not violate 2-party consent?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Corporations are allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want. There might be a few tiny consequences 10-20 years later that shaves a couple months of profit down, but that is just the cost of business and massive profits for the rest of the time.

    Hope this helps!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 21 hours ago

    Just like all these AI companies tracking people, totally illegal and gross violation of privacy but the government could give a rip.

    You break a law? Go straight to jail!

    Corporation breaks a law? Ohhh well!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    There is probably some technicality in that since it doesn’t record audio, but rather just keeps a transcription - that it might not fall afoul of two-party consent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Even if it is only temporarily stored to RAM for processing, I struggle to see how that doesn't still count as "recording".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    It probably wouldn’t meet the strict legal definition, as no copy (physical or digital) is left behind for any period of time - as RAM is volatile and its contents disappear on power cycle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Not every country or country subdivision has two party consent. Canada is a one party consent legislation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    I understand that. What about the places that do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments