3 ms·
If they are training on inbound e-mails from senders without Google accounts residing in or present at the time of sending in two-party consent states, they are
by eigh0xohyeib6Te 3y ago
If they are training on inbound e-mails from senders without Google accounts residing in or present at the time of sending in two-party consent states, they are likely in violation of the telephone call recording laws of those states.
- keep_reading 3y agoGot any case law you can cite or are you just making this up?
- eigh0xohyeib6Te 3y agoI'm not familiar with the case law, but e.g. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html In fact I doubt there's fully relevant case law, as I think the case would be that the trained model is the recording device, and it could be demonstrated that verbatim strings from presumed confidential communications are regurgitated by the model when appropriately prompted.
- keep_reading 3y agoGoogle also reads your email for spam filtering purposes, including training their filters which has a financial benefit to themselves as well. Wouldn't this also be a violation of the same Two Party Consent law that you're trying to apply here?
- jedberg 3y agoPretty sure not. I think there is an implied ownership of the email once I send it. Just like if I send you a letter you now own the letter.