4 ms·

How would this function in two-party consent states like California? My understanding is limited, but from what I've read, this might still violate consent laws

How would this function in two-party consent states like California? My understanding is limited, but from what I've read, this might still violate consent laws unless explicitly disclosed—even in public spaces. I recently explored building a real-time STT system for sales calls to support cold-calling efforts. However, the consensus from my research was that, even if audio is streamed live without storage, consent laws could still present significant hurdles.

crazygringo 1y ago
I think it really depends on the legal definition of recording or what it's used for. Common sense says that a recording that only exists for a few seconds, and is utilized only by the person a speaker is intending to speak to, and is never permanently stored, should be fine. And we can assume Apple has made sure this is legal in its home state of California. But EU law might not have sufficient legal clarity on this if it was written in a particularly open-ended way.
- consp 1y ago
  If you put this in the data processing agreement and make those available ("GDPR" requirement in most countries) it's pretty much fine. You can probably use them for training and improving purposes if destroyed after a short duration as well. Speech is personal information but not medical so no special things apply. The laws in most countries are quite clear about non medical personal information and translation is a good grounds for usage of personal information as far as I can see. You have to specify usage however. Which is what most companies bark about because they want to store things for later use and unknown purpose. Which is frowned upon. You also need to protect personal data adequately which is deliberately vague. Storing it unencrypted for instance is not considered adequate. This also applies in transit.
gtirloni 1y ago
At the point where you enable this feature (you wouldn't walk around with it enabled at all times because why?) the phone shows a screen asking you to get consent and the other person touches yes/no and that's it? Or would a signed form with a government seal be required?
- ffsm8 1y ago
  IANAL, but from my understanding the user needs to get consent, not Apple. There would be no consent screen, apple would at most give a small dialog warning to the user that this usage is illegal (for the user). unless every participant has given consent
cyberax 1y ago
> How would this function in two-party consent states like California? It won't. Regulations permit sound recording, as long as it's not stored. Speech-to-text and hearing aids for disabled people are an example of permitted uses.
tick_tock_tick 1y ago
> even in public spaces Even in a two party state public spaces are fair game. The Constitution supersedes state law.
- otterley 1y ago
  The Constitution has nothing to do with this. It constrains the Government, not private actors. And there’s no Constitutional right to a translation service. You’re probably thinking about warrantless recordings of conversations and the reasonable expectation of privacy requirement. This doesn’t apply here.
  - johncolanduoni 1y ago
    The Constitution can definitely restrict the ability of the government to pass laws regulating behavior, and two-party consent statutes are definitely laws that regulate behavior. Whether the object level question is true is a different matter, but I would assume so given that you can point a camera that records audio at people in public at all. Also, the US Constitution does constrain private actors, all the time. It bans slavery for a very simple example.
    - otterley 1y ago
      The Constitution does not forbid laws that require two-party consent to record a conversation. That’s what we’re talking about here. The constitutional view of the 13th Amendment is that it withdrew from government the power to promulgate or enforce laws that allowed slavery to exist. If a slave escaped after the 13th Amendment passed, the government then lacked the power to assist the former slaveholder in capturing and returning him. Similarly, without the power to enforce property rights, there became effectively no property interest in a slave.
      - johncolanduoni 1y ago
        I’m finding a lot of literature from NGOs specializing in US jurisprudence saying the first amendment has been interpreted to protect public, obvious recording[1]. If I tried to draw up an indentured servitude contract, what federal or state laws would explicitly forbid enforcing it myself? If state laws, do all states have equivalent laws? [1]: https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/ https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/
johncolanduoni 1y ago
Is this much different than a hearing aid, even in technical detail? A hearing aid will have a small internal buffer containing processed audio. I’m not sure the law will care that the processing is more substantial as long as it’s on-device and ephemeral.

crazygringo 1y ago

I think it really depends on the legal definition of recording or what it's used for. Common sense says that a recording that only exists for a few seconds, and is utilized only by the person a speaker is intending to speak to, and is never permanently stored, should be fine. And we can assume Apple has made sure this is legal in its home state of California. But EU law might not have sufficient legal clarity on this if it was written in a particularly open-ended way.

consp 1y ago
If you put this in the data processing agreement and make those available ("GDPR" requirement in most countries) it's pretty much fine. You can probably use them for training and improving purposes if destroyed after a short duration as well. Speech is personal information but not medical so no special things apply. The laws in most countries are quite clear about non medical personal information and translation is a good grounds for usage of personal information as far as I can see. You have to specify usage however. Which is what most companies bark about because they want to store things for later use and unknown purpose. Which is frowned upon. You also need to protect personal data adequately which is deliberately vague. Storing it unencrypted for instance is not considered adequate. This also applies in transit.

gtirloni 1y ago

At the point where you enable this feature (you wouldn't walk around with it enabled at all times because why?) the phone shows a screen asking you to get consent and the other person touches yes/no and that's it? Or would a signed form with a government seal be required?

ffsm8 1y ago
IANAL, but from my understanding the user needs to get consent, not Apple. There would be no consent screen, apple would at most give a small dialog warning to the user that this usage is illegal (for the user). unless every participant has given consent

cyberax 1y ago

> How would this function in two-party consent states like California? It won't. Regulations permit sound recording, as long as it's not stored. Speech-to-text and hearing aids for disabled people are an example of permitted uses.

tick_tock_tick 1y ago

> even in public spaces Even in a two party state public spaces are fair game. The Constitution supersedes state law.

otterley 1y ago
The Constitution has nothing to do with this. It constrains the Government, not private actors. And there’s no Constitutional right to a translation service. You’re probably thinking about warrantless recordings of conversations and the reasonable expectation of privacy requirement. This doesn’t apply here.
- johncolanduoni 1y ago
  The Constitution can definitely restrict the ability of the government to pass laws regulating behavior, and two-party consent statutes are definitely laws that regulate behavior. Whether the object level question is true is a different matter, but I would assume so given that you can point a camera that records audio at people in public at all. Also, the US Constitution does constrain private actors, all the time. It bans slavery for a very simple example.
  - otterley 1y ago
    The Constitution does not forbid laws that require two-party consent to record a conversation. That’s what we’re talking about here. The constitutional view of the 13th Amendment is that it withdrew from government the power to promulgate or enforce laws that allowed slavery to exist. If a slave escaped after the 13th Amendment passed, the government then lacked the power to assist the former slaveholder in capturing and returning him. Similarly, without the power to enforce property rights, there became effectively no property interest in a slave.
    - johncolanduoni 1y ago
      I’m finding a lot of literature from NGOs specializing in US jurisprudence saying the first amendment has been interpreted to protect public, obvious recording[1]. If I tried to draw up an indentured servitude contract, what federal or state laws would explicitly forbid enforcing it myself? If state laws, do all states have equivalent laws? [1]: https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/ https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/

johncolanduoni 1y ago

Is this much different than a hearing aid, even in technical detail? A hearing aid will have a small internal buffer containing processed audio. I’m not sure the law will care that the processing is more substantial as long as it’s on-device and ephemeral.