On what legal footing does this recap feature stand? In fairly certain there are a non-zero amount of laws prohibiting audio recording without consent. And this wrist mounted always listening thing is likely to end up in a lot of places it should not. Probably burried in the end user agreement that it is 100% the users fault.

▲

jdm2212 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It produces "high level summaries" so it's perhaps legally akin to note-taking rather than audio recording?

	▲	al_borland 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wonder how long before we see how well these summaries hold up in court.
	▲	robviren an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

tencentshill 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Instant in-memory transcription likely isn't legally considered the same as storing the actual audio. It probably couldn't be used as proof in a court like audio could (for now...).

	▲	cael450 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Probably not, but contemporaneous notes have their own value legally.

▲

owldown 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It isn't recording or storing audio, so laws against audio recording don't apply.

	▲	Lio 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That really bothers me. It might be legal for Apple to do this but it's still creepy as fuck. They're still recording everywhere and sending a transcription to iCloud and they're doing it without consent. This has the same vibes as those Meta glasses. It's something that people will force on others.
	▲	iAMkenough 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Transcriptions count if you’re using them to intercept and record oral communications between others. The recording doesn’t have to be audio to violate the Federal Wiretap Act.

▲

doublepg23 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was saying the same to my friend.

PA has very strict two party consent wiretap laws I'm not sure this feature would clear.

▲

havaloc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I imagine it was ran past their likely large legal department.

▲

vulk 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am not sure who and why came up with this looks like a mass surveillance to me.

	▲	al_borland 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s to compete with all the failed AI wearables with the same features.

▲

CodingJeebus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IANAL but my guess is that they're leaning heavily into the fact that the feature just generates transcripts and does not persist any audio recordings.

▲

corvad 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, many states in the U.S. have recording laws that prohibit only one party giving consent to record. Aka: I give consent but the other party may not in which case it could be illegal.

▲

akmarinov 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Seems like it’s not recording, you can’t access an audio recording.

Just the output of what the AI thinks was in the audio

Also Android has had shazam style always on music recognition for years now with no issues, this isn’t that different

▲

tenacious_tuna 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> this isn’t that different

It's entirely different. One is fingerprinting ambient audio against a corpus of known signatures to identify music, another is basically silently monitoring and summarizing every conversation it hears for later review.

I don't feel like my privacy is being invaded by a date's phone telling them what song was playing at the restaurant, but I would be disturbed if their phone produced a summary of our conversation, especially if any vulnerable topics came up.

	▲	gumby271 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I feel like I'd also be a little weirded out to find my date referencing the summary or transcript later, maybe that's just me. Like if I said something personal and they whipped out a notebook and wrote it down real fast, that's unnerving.

▲

gumby271 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The Android feature is matching songs it hears to an on-device database of fingerprints, the other is recording, transcribing, and summarizing all conversations around it. Seems a little different.