• thatOneGuy@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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?

      • spizzat2@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 hours ago

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

        • thatOneGuy@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 hours ago

          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.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Or it probably would, they just have no plan to stop it unless they get sued and a judge forces them

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      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!

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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!