> [EU regulations] gives people a degree of control over their personal data, including the right to ask for it to be deleted.

The reason I think all-party consent laws are bad is the same reason I find the above sentence silly: If you say something out loud that is no longer your exclusive “data.” If you want to keep it secret either don’t say it, or say it under NDA or in a customary fashion such as telling a reporter off the record.

If you speak to me, I ought to have the right to memorialize it however I see fit (including note-taking with pencil, recording, and AI transcription) unless you and I agree otherwise (I do believe one should be bound to honor those commitments though).

Note: I live in an all-party consent state so I don’t record anything in actuality. But one should be free to — especially when dealing with corporate entities, who all force this recording unilaterally on everyone as a condition of ever speaking to them!

This is some very black-and-white thinking.

If you haven't grown up with every semi-publicly spoken word recorded and made searchable, you aren't used to restrict what you say to those that you are OK with being recorded.

But, even more importantly, even if you do, you might later change your mind about things.

Part as a problem is that we, as a society, don't really deal appropriately (at least in my opinion) to old recordings. If somebody said something slightly offensive 10 years ago, and it wasn't recorded, basically nobody cares. If it was recorded, there's too much outrage, considering that this was one thing of literally 100k things they said that year.

I disagree. The common sense position is by default we're not recording each other. We shouldn't have to start every discussion with a disclaimer when most people aren't recording each other most of the time. Taking some notes in a meeting is fine and very different from transcribing it in totality using a tool that has high accuracy.