3 ms·

That’s not how criminal law works.

• lostphilosopher 7y ago
  If I use Facebook voice-to-text around you, why is that different from using a traditional recording device without your consent? Isn't that on me, not whomever listens to that recording?
  • garmaine 7y ago
    Typically, intent is the distinguisher. You intended for the interaction to be transient and transactional—you say something and text appears on the screen. In reality and without your knowledge, the service provider intentionally recorded, kept, and shared that data. That puts the service provider at fault as they are the ones that arranged for he recording to happen, if if you are he one that pushed the button.
• ajross 7y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted, this is correct. You can't "waive liability" for a crime. If a conversation was recorded without consent in a two-party state, then a crime was commited. And absent a carve-out in the law, I don't see how the party that actually made and retained that recording (Facebook) wouldn't be prosecutable. Absolutely no EULA term is going to get them out of that. That said: they won't be prosecuted criminally, because this isn't really the spirit of the law and prosecutors aren't generally in the habit of taking on giant corporations for putatively useful technologies. It's much more likely that they'll pay a fine and stop doing it. No one is going to court.