3 ms·

it works, in an American context, because the states would have to take it to court and determine if this actually fell under the rules of making a recording.

it works, in an American context, because the states would have to take it to court and determine if this actually fell under the rules of making a recording. Argument for, there is no recording stored anywhere thus it does not need consent. Argument against, there is obviously a recording made. A recording is made and transmitted between devices and Apple and afterwards deleted, that this happens almost real time as the conversation does not change the fact a recording exists for some short time. Probably Argument for wins, but assume at some point the transcriptions become nearly perfect then expect it to be litigated again.

jsw97 1mo ago
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. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha... 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.
- skinfaxi 1mo ago
  > This may become a case of we don't enforce the laws against large companies. Why would Apple be a party here at all? Would Sony be a party if someone records another with a walkman?
  - bryanrasmussen 1mo ago
    Apple is potentially a party because Apple processes and provides a recap of what was processed.
    - jsw97 1mo ago
      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.
      - skinfaxi 1mo ago
        What is the law you are basing your theory?
    - skinfaxi 1mo ago
      Why would the manufacturer of a recording device be liable for its use counter to law?
      - bryanrasmussen 1mo ago
        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.
- bryanrasmussen 1mo ago
  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.

jsw97 1mo ago

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. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha... 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.

skinfaxi 1mo ago
> This may become a case of we don't enforce the laws against large companies. Why would Apple be a party here at all? Would Sony be a party if someone records another with a walkman?
- bryanrasmussen 1mo ago
  Apple is potentially a party because Apple processes and provides a recap of what was processed.
  - jsw97 1mo ago
    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.
    - skinfaxi 1mo ago
      What is the law you are basing your theory?
  - skinfaxi 1mo ago
    Why would the manufacturer of a recording device be liable for its use counter to law?
    - bryanrasmussen 1mo ago
      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.
bryanrasmussen 1mo ago
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.