fuck offffff

  • oats@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Illegal in Germany. You may not record conversations, if you try to enter something like that as evidence you’ll get punished as well.

    I suspect there are many countries with laws like that, and if your phone actually disables the feature when you enter them or just let’s you hang to dry…

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Doubt. The law likely talks about making unauthorized recordings. There is likely nothing in the law that would disallow automatic transcription if no recording is created.

      Unless the law is extremely vague such as “it is unlawful for a microphone to pick up conversations” the law likely doesn’t cover this situation.

      I am more than happy (and eager) to be proven wrong, but in my experience the law tends to lag behind tech by quite a bit.

      • oats@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I didn’t check the actual law, always a good idea to do so.

        So, §201 StGB actually covers both, it is forbidden to “aufnehmen” (record) as well as “mithören” (spy on). Bonus, its forbidden to cite transcription (im Wortlaut mitteilen).

        Its an old law, going back to video cameras with magnetic tape and actually tapping a phone line. So it was used quite often, including the mentioned fake surveillance cameras, that didn’t record or even view anything but seemed to the public they did.

        When dashcams became a thing people would be sentenced for using them. These days you can use dashcams, but never save for more than 24h or show the recording to anyone but the police/court.

        I guess the law is a relict of living next door to Stasi, but its really just a guess of mine.

    • Zarobi@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I wonder if there’s a legal loophole here? Specifically this works by transcribing “important conversations” into text, it’s not actually storing .mp3 recordings. Obviously still disgusting and I hate it.

      • Rooster326@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The legal loophole is Google can afford to pay the fine. They make more money breaking ze to law than they do following they law

        • oats@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          No, the user breaks this law, not the manufacturer. So the loophole for google is, they don’t care about you.

        • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          This right here. Companies like Google effectively have infinite money and it’s not a big deal for them to pay off the (usually miniscule) fines that they get hit with.

      • oats@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Not a lawyer, but as far as I got it, the storing isn’t the punishable part, the recording is.

        You can’t have security cameras filming public spaces (like the road in front of your house). Even if its dummies, as people couldn’t tell the difference whether the camera actually films them or not.