Acting with urgency is a bit at odds with discovering flaws in your plan. If you're sprinting you're less likely to notice smells and things that are inelegant, more likely to paper them over. That said, there is a time for urgency. Just not every single task.
I know this is intended as a joke but there is something to it. The public market has a way of elevating profit over everything else, even if you start with the best intentions. Remember “don’t be evil”?
If this is true, though, then given the way their chat operates, this might be more dangerous than it seems.
One of the things I like about ChatGPT is its memory, the way it kind of seamlessly, but not excessively, ties back to earlier discussions. It's huge for usability (for me).
But this also means that you should expect that if "improve the model for everyone" becomes unclicked (leaving aside for a moment the fact that that is ridiculous) then they have a reasonable argument that your decision implies to all conversations. Because recall is part of their thing. So it's not just your chats going forward that are at risk. As soon as you see that unclicked, it's reasonable to expect that your history is irretrievably theirs now. You don't even have to think they are especially nefarious for this to be true.
Argument for only wins because of the weight of the lawyers they can bring to bear. Clearly ephemeral recording for the purposes of processing violates the spirit of the statute at least. And there is this, from the MGL:
The term ''interception'' means to secretly hear, secretly record,
or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of
any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting
device by any person other than a person given prior authority by
all parties to such communication.
Oh wait, they are not helping another person to "hear", only to see the words spoken or a summary thereof. Oops, MGL has you there too:
The term ''contents'', when used with respect to any wire or
oral communication, means any information concerning the identity
of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
So if you wear a watch in a conversation without consent, and then after the fact the watch tells you who was in the conversation or what it was about, that seems like a facial violation. Maybe it falls under a common carrier exemption, but then that puts legal liability on the wearer not Apple.
This may become a case of we don't enforce the laws against large companies.
Even beyond this, if you create circumstances where mass commission of consequential felonies is an inevitable result, I suspect that is also illegal. 100% this just gets ignored by the Mass attorney general though.
I have a hard time believing you are asking this question in good faith.
However I will respond with what I might expect to see play out:
If Sony makes a Walkman and you record with that Walkman it stays on that Walkman and you have a recording. After Sony sells you the Walkman Sony no longer interacts with you to record something, all of your recording is based on your deciding to record, and Sony has absolutely nothing to do with any recording you make.
If you use Siri recap it moves between devices and Apple analyses it to give you a recap of what was said, obviously it is something that would need to be argued in court but depending on the pertinent state laws it seems reasonable to assume that it would be argued that Apple had the recording in its possession at one point, and that they did something on an individual basis with your recording. Sony does nothing individually with the recordings, Apple does, Apple Analyzes the recording and gives you a recap.
Why would the company providing analysis of illegal recordings be liable if that's the product they're selling? Well, perhaps, as in the case of the MA statute quoted, there is something in the law saying if you do analysis of an illegal recording you are liable. That would be a pretty big "Why" in my experience.
All of this is of course open to legal interpretation because in the U.S nobody knows for sure if it is legal or not until the rulings establish the precedent. However you can often guess pretty accurately.
On edit: I had forgotten the exact content of the MA statute, going back and looking at it, it probably isn't a liability for Apple, but it isn't 100% sure it isn't (I'd say a pretty good chance though) plus as this is on a state basis, there could easily be another state that words things in such a way that it might more likely be a problem for Apple.
since they didn't specify a specific state I suppose it probably varies, but yeah, there is obviously one case in which it looks like a pretty clear cut violation.
I hear this a lot but such a perspective elides the novelty (and the actual question):
If I devise a mechanical device that semi-faithfully creates marks that convey information about a conversation - but which does not offer a way to replay the conversation whatsoever - does that constitute a recording subject to two-party consent?
If so, how does this relate to a potential decision to write notes about a call right after as a memo/in my diary?
If so, how does this relate to having my secretary record the conversation in shorthand while listening furtively to the conversation?
The term ''interception'' means to secretly hear, secretly record,
or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of
any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting
device by any person other than a person given prior authority by
all parties to such communication.
The term ''contents'', when used with respect to any wire or
oral communication, means any information concerning the identity
of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
If you get content, useful or otherwise, from the recording, you are violating the law. Unless you fall under one the exemptions, which you probably don't.
So first question, "devise a mechanical device" -- violates. Second, "write notes", no. Third question, "secretary record" -- no.
Right it does secretly record, because of the 15s buffer. "Record then delete" or "Record but can't access" is not acceptable, the law covers intercepting entirely.
Apple is banking on the transcripts-not-recordings and notification sounds (can't be disabled) to avoid it, but MA law is more strict.
I doubt "15s buffer" will hold up as "not a recording" and a notification that the recording is used 15 seconds later (during which a person could have walked away) won't be good enough.
AFAIK one problem is that the law is written to punish the recorder, not the provider of the technology. So it will likely slip by until someone makes a claim against an individual using it, and Apple will end up geofencing it.
One complication for geofencing is that the Mass law applies if one party is in the state. So if you're on a zoom with someone in Mass, you're still violating.
Fair enough, it seems the watch would be an 'intercepting device' and thus all parties would need to agree for any party to use the device for the summary function.
There seems to be a mass downvoting scheme on HN lately. I don't know who's behind it and what their motives are but I constantly see valid comments made within the last five minutes greyed out.
I would like to raise another question. If I recap a meeting onto physical paper, by hand, is it still considered a felony?
The point I'm trying to make by this exaggeration is that sometimes the information itself is private and recording that information causes issues as well.
e.g. a military personal taking a pen and paper and listing some secret information they know of, this piece of paper by definition is also subject to regulation that is supposed to keep secret information secure.
Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical. Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection?
Laws like this provide cover for abusers and deceivers, by preemptively spoiling objective evidence and making any accusations depend on hearsay instead.
It's not illegal for you to remember, it's illegal for you to record. There's a difference.
For me, I don't want to live in a world where if I say something embarrassing or not well thought out, someone pushes a button and the last 15 seconds is transcribed as evidence. That's a different world to the previous one where it would be someone's word fori it.
As for the fact that phone could already do this, that's not the point. Phone users have to go out of their way to make it happen so it's generally unlikely to happen. The watch feature though is always on and just waiting for you to press "save last 15 seconds"
Same with the always-on transcription feature that you dont even need to interact with. I like not having to speak with extreme precision, knowing my words are going into some record.
> Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical
Really disagree on this, I think all states should be two party consent, personally.
> Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection?
It's not illegal, it's just that the other person has to know that you're doing that and consent to it.
Giving them the chance to walk away or to tell a person and their Meta glasses to fuck off is important.
Our politicians and legislators lie on camera constantly. But it doesn't really seem to matter much these days. So I'm not sure why this would make a difference.
Everyone being liars means you and I are both liars, same as the politicians. But the politicians have the power and if we remove two party consent then they get to surreptitiously record you and leverage that power. It doesnt even the power playing field.
We can alreay write notes down for every conversation and then send them to the person involved saying "we talked about X, Y, and Z." That last step is the key because it lets them object in writing if you mischaracterize things. From a "catching someone in a lie" the most important step is that one, because you form a paper trail where the other party can correct or contest what was written and bring that up now, and the fact that they didn't is itself evidence in case of a dispute later. The apple watch feature doesn't do that, it just dragnets everything. Even if it recorded the audio, we are in a faked-audio world so unless you have some signal that they agreed that they said a thing ahead of time, they can always deny it later.
The last time I checked there was a loophole — if you provide feedback in-session (responding to “how are we doing” or “which prompt is better”) then they can use that feedback + relevant context. Relevant context for chatgpt might include memories / other sessions. That may not be the only loophole.
That in itself is a dark, dark pattern. There should at the very least be explicit warnings for users who have checked “do not train”; or they should not be presented with such dialogs.
Just to be helpful if anyone is searching for layla, it's laya.
reply