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.
-
@dalias @jonathankoren@sfba.social I have jonathankoren blocked also.
I wish I took notes now. @anolandria @dalias you can use AI for those notes, apparently
-
@sharpcheddargoblin @Em0nM4stodon Complete ill-informed bollocks. A case of algorithm aversion should not stop anyone with intelligence from discovering how things work.
-
@anolandria @dalias you can use AI for those notes, apparently
-
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 use it often for work. And before we start the interview i always ask... but using a recorder makes the interview so much better bc i'm focused on the conversation not taking notes.
But yes. Always ask.
-
@feld @Em0nM4stodon I just went through this with lawyers like a month ago. My understanding:
YES, you must get clear consent for a recording in 2-party states, or it’s illegal. That consent can come from a contract, but it is not implied.
YES, if you’re using another tool to record people, you / the tool are required to actively seek consent, and in some cases destroy a recording if you don’t get it.
YES, this also applies to AI tools; they don’t magically get a pass on this rule.
@feld @Em0nM4stodon ALSO, 2-party consent for audio recordings is by far not the strongest law or regulation that could apply, depending on jurisdictions
Our lawyers strongly recommended getting explicit, documented consent for every recording as a best practice to ensure compliance
-
@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 @Em0nM4stodon I just went through this with lawyers like a month ago. My understanding:
YES, you must get clear consent for a recording in 2-party states, or it’s illegal. That consent can come from a contract, but it is not implied.
YES, if you’re using another tool to record people, you / the tool are required to actively seek consent, and in some cases destroy a recording if you don’t get it.
YES, this also applies to AI tools; they don’t magically get a pass on this rule.
-
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
Everyday discovering a new stupid AI tool of fuckery for systematic mass surrendering -
@rainynight65 @Em0nM4stodon
Yeah, that’s tech SOP for consent to EULAs. I can’t read the damn things because the text is too small and I can’t find a way to change the font size. -
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.
-
@rzeta0 In many jurisdictions, yes.
-
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 Just pretend you have an LG TV and everything'll work out
-
@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".@feld
Why do you think notetakers are only used during distant meetings? https://www.reddit.com/r/NoteTaking/comments/1tdv72a/tested_a_few_ai_note_takers_for_meetings_heres/
@Em0nM4stodon -
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 if that were to happen at my workplace, we'd immediately have to report it to the Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragte as a data security incident. Our privacy and data protection law specialist would not only have a field day, he'd probably have a field month. Considering the gross negligence of the act, especially considering the sensitivity of data in question, the perpretator might get jailtime with pretty serious charges, plus i can imagine the incident getting national headlines.
Dear AI bros, I know this is especially tricky for you lot, but please think before you act.
-
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 can we talk about consent in a professional context with per pressure?
-
@Em0nM4stodon if that were to happen at my workplace, we'd immediately have to report it to the Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragte as a data security incident. Our privacy and data protection law specialist would not only have a field day, he'd probably have a field month. Considering the gross negligence of the act, especially considering the sensitivity of data in question, the perpretator might get jailtime with pretty serious charges, plus i can imagine the incident getting national headlines.
Dear AI bros, I know this is especially tricky for you lot, but please think before you act.
@lucydev That sounds like a great place to work at
-
@anolandria @dalias you can use AI for those notes, apparently
@jeffmcneill careful, your "straw man arguments" are indistinguishable from actual arguing for fashtech
-
@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 @Em0nM4stodon @sharpcheddargoblin and AIUI the LLMs currently marketed as "AI" are not even good at this (just "cheap", modulo power/water/rare elements/labour/work use)
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
