fuck offffff

  • Zarobi@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 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
      ·
      6 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
        2 hours 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
        ·
        6 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
      ·
      8 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.