> I think it might be that services like Otter need to be adjusted to take into account that not every part of a meeting is of equal sensitivity.

One would like to think that a company transcribing company meetings of varying degrees of sensitivity would have the feature you're describing built into it. If nothing else other than the auditing process that's usually involved for new software.

Maybe just those companies in a rush to adopt the latest AI tooling are not fully considering what they're doing.

That’s part of it too, the bigger issue is the knowledge and consent of other participants.

I know someone who is involved in a lawsuit regarding a child, and one of the lawyers used this service to record and transcribe a very confidential meeting. Their first awareness of the illegal wiretapping by this company was when a summary email showed up at the end of the meeting. Needless to say, they weren’t happy, not just about the surreptitious recording, but also the discovery that the contents of that confidential coal will live forever in Otter’s training set. When the company was asked about this, they dismissed any kind of responsibility of their own, and noted it the responsibility of their subscribers to use the product appropriately.