Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
-
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
-
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
@Em0nM4stodon by that logic any time you record a meeting in a 2-party consent state you have to get explicit consent or it's illegal. Regardless of AI. Which I'm pretty sure is bullshit because you're in a work environment and you have no expectation of privacy when you're literally in a work meeting. You're being paid to be there and there's already an expectation that the company will be able to retain a copy of the meeting. Because the fruit of that meeting is the company's property.
I'm not buying it
edit: did you just make this up or do you have case law precedent to point to ? -
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
(Not towards you) But generally I mean I don't know why people need AI involved, just ask to take a video/audio of the meeting.
-
@Em0nM4stodon by that logic any time you record a meeting in a 2-party consent state you have to get explicit consent or it's illegal. Regardless of AI. Which I'm pretty sure is bullshit because you're in a work environment and you have no expectation of privacy when you're literally in a work meeting. You're being paid to be there and there's already an expectation that the company will be able to retain a copy of the meeting. Because the fruit of that meeting is the company's property.
I'm not buying it
edit: did you just make this up or do you have case law precedent to point to ?@feld I am a privacy professional, and your description here is inaccurate. Besides, there are many situations where people are not being paid to be in a meeting, and even when they are, this doesn't magically remove all privacy rights they might have in their jurisdictions. Employees have rights too.
-
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
@Em0nM4stodon any cases from anywhere around the world where anyone has successfully been tried against these privacy laws?
-
@Em0nM4stodon any cases from anywhere around the world where anyone has successfully been tried against these privacy laws?
@thief_of_fire This a bit vague for a question, but many data protection authorities keep records of reported cases and judgements. I encourage you to consult your regional DPA website to see if you can find any cases relevant to your question.
-
@jackryder@infosec.exchange @realcaseyrollins @Em0nM4stodon "it was", unfortunately. No longer works.
-
@feld I am a privacy professional, and your description here is inaccurate. Besides, there are many situations where people are not being paid to be in a meeting, and even when they are, this doesn't magically remove all privacy rights they might have in their jurisdictions. Employees have rights too.
@Em0nM4stodon
> I am a privacy professional
great so we've established you have no legal training, so let's armchair lawyer this together
Now why is the AI transcription service suddenly a special threat (many are contractually ZDR, so they record nothing anyway) but Zoom isn't? Or how about whoever the phone company is that's running the conference bridge? They can record the conversations too.
Your justification here is "I don't like the technology". Well if I don't like that the meeting is being recorded with a Sony Digital Voice Recorder because I have a grudge against Sony, I don't have "special rights" to demand that some other technology be used for this purpose.
And as for the legal side:
First, your company probably has something in their employee handbook like "employees should have no expectation of privacy in work related areas.". There is case law for this. Break rooms, bathrooms, and locker rooms are off limits for recording.
Secondly, let's look at Washington State as an example. This is a two-party consent state. Here's the law:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
Nothing in here fits your claims. This is about private conversations. A work meeting is not a private conversation in a private location. The legal hurdle you need to get over is if it's a "surreptitious recording". An AI service doing meeting transcriptions is not a "surreptitious recording". -
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
@Em0nM4stodon What makes this doubly shitty is that we had ML to do transcription for accessibility purposes (which usually did an ok job for some languages), and now most of these meeting apps instead just shove the lying slop machine in there for shittier translation, garbage summaries, and privacy violations.
I complained at work and was told it can't be turned off because we need transcripts for accessibility. Fuck.
-
@Em0nM4stodon What makes this doubly shitty is that we had ML to do transcription for accessibility purposes (which usually did an ok job for some languages), and now most of these meeting apps instead just shove the lying slop machine in there for shittier translation, garbage summaries, and privacy violations.
I complained at work and was told it can't be turned off because we need transcripts for accessibility. Fuck.
@sharpcheddargoblin That's horrible
-
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
We tell our students this, but they continue to ignore the rules!
In countries with codified laws (civil law, place like France) it is usually pretty clear: you can try but if you are caught you could face very hefty fines and even prison time.
Case law (common law, USA/Canada) is about interpretation and precedence. Always ask, it only takes one litigious colleague to get you fired or in court.
-
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
@Em0nM4stodon Zoom execs take note.
-
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
@Em0nM4stodon I'm in the GDPR area, and even here, people just throw such tools in meetings, or at least I've seen it happen a couple of times.
It sucks because refusing to be in such a meeting is not always an option, at least not if you want to keep your job.
(Disclaimer: This does not refer to my old employers.)
-
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
@Em0nM4stodon my gf had this experience recently when a sales guy thought he was really doing something by pumping all of their meeting into AI and sending an email company wide with his "results." I expect that guy to get fired.
-
Just so you know, using an AI notetaker during a meeting without priorly asking for consent from all participants before starting it breaches many if not most privacy laws around the world.
In certain cases, it can even breach two-party consent laws, and be a criminal act.
Ideally, never use these privacy-invasive tools ever. But if you do use them, you must ask for everyone's consent first, and respect their choice fully if they refuse to be recorded.
@Em0nM4stodon
The only way this legitimately works is if the AI generated notes are subsequently sent out to all participants for review and correction before being accepted. This should be done for all official meeting notes regardless of who or what generated the notes. -
(Not towards you) But generally I mean I don't know why people need AI involved, just ask to take a video/audio of the meeting.
@YourShadowDani
they want a written transcript an a bullet point summary
@Em0nM4stodon -
@Em0nM4stodon What makes this doubly shitty is that we had ML to do transcription for accessibility purposes (which usually did an ok job for some languages), and now most of these meeting apps instead just shove the lying slop machine in there for shittier translation, garbage summaries, and privacy violations.
I complained at work and was told it can't be turned off because we need transcripts for accessibility. Fuck.
@sharpcheddargoblin @Em0nM4stodon Legitimate transcription for accessibility requires a local speech to text engine with no persistent recording of the input. Which already existed before "AI". Trying to use this as a lever to get "AI" in the door is entirely bad-faith.
-
@dalias but the very technology you’re lauding is built using the very same techniques as the dreaded “AI”. To bring up AI is bad, when the problem you really have is persistence is bad faith.
Even just talking about “AI” as if it is anything other than vapid marketing speech not only does the billionaire work for them, it clouds your own argument and renders it risible
-
@dalias but the very technology you’re lauding is built using the very same techniques as the dreaded “AI”. To bring up AI is bad, when the problem you really have is persistence is bad faith.
Even just talking about “AI” as if it is anything other than vapid marketing speech not only does the billionaire work for them, it clouds your own argument and renders it risible
@jonathankoren No it is not.
The only "technology" "the dreaded AI" is built upon is the technology of the cold reader, the mentalist, the con man, the "technology" of understanding how to make gullible humans believe you're doing something you're not.
And that's what you're trying to do now, and it's not working.
-
@jonathankoren No it is not.
The only "technology" "the dreaded AI" is built upon is the technology of the cold reader, the mentalist, the con man, the "technology" of understanding how to make gullible humans believe you're doing something you're not.
And that's what you're trying to do now, and it's not working.
@jonathankoren Oh, wow, I love Mastodon profile notes. Already had on this one:
"Stan for AI shit, willfully misinterpreting words against it"
Time for a block.
