4 ms·
This isn't government surveillance. This is companies keeping business records. Or more specifically not throwing them out when they might be evidence in a lega
by wpietri 3y ago
This isn't government surveillance. This is companies keeping business records. Or more specifically not throwing them out when they might be evidence in a legal proceeding. They only end up in the hands of the government when the government has brought a lawsuit and a judge has decided the records are relevant.
And recording meetings isn't the stretch you might think. Financial companies have long had a variety of legal obligations to record communications related to financial trades and customer orders. This isn't just for funsies. Trust in the financial system is an incredibly valuable societal asset, and good records both mitigate errors and reduce crime.
As we see with the rise in recorded video meetings and auto-transcription services, plus the utility of from things like Slack's search, companies are seeing the value of keeping track of what happened. But that's not new; I don't know how far back the custom of meeting minutes goes, but it was in Robert's Rules of Order in 1876. [1] So it's entirely plausible to me that in a generation's time, auto-transcripts of every meeting will be seen as normal, with auto-summarization and LLM querying thrown in for free.
[1] https://www.fulltextarchive.com/book/Robert-s-Rules-of-Order/ https://www.fulltextarchive.com/book/Robert-s-Rules-of-Order...
- scarface_74 3y agoFinancial companies should have higher regulator standards since if they fail, our taxpayer money is on the line and any malfeasance affects people’s lives. Google is just an adTech company masquerading as a search engine? Who cares?