4 ms·

Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical. Why should it be illega

Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical. Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection? Laws like this provide cover for abusers and deceivers, by preemptively spoiling objective evidence and making any accusations depend on hearsay instead.

magicalist 24d ago
> Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical Really disagree on this, I think all states should be two party consent, personally. > Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection? It's not illegal, it's just that the other person has to know that you're doing that and consent to it. Giving them the chance to walk away or to tell a person and their Meta glasses to fuck off is important.
- voakbasda 24d ago
  People are fucking liars. Everyone, everywhere, always. I want to record every conversation surreptitiously, because that’s the only way to catch them. The reason we can’t is because our politicians and legislators are the biggest liars of them all. It would spell their immediate downfall.
  - lelandbatey 24d ago
    Everyone being liars means you and I are both liars, same as the politicians. But the politicians have the power and if we remove two party consent then they get to surreptitiously record you and leverage that power. It doesnt even the power playing field. We can alreay write notes down for every conversation and then send them to the person involved saying "we talked about X, Y, and Z." That last step is the key because it lets them object in writing if you mischaracterize things. From a "catching someone in a lie" the most important step is that one, because you form a paper trail where the other party can correct or contest what was written and bring that up now, and the fact that they didn't is itself evidence in case of a dispute later. The apple watch feature doesn't do that, it just dragnets everything. Even if it recorded the audio, we are in a faked-audio world so unless you have some signal that they agreed that they said a thing ahead of time, they can always deny it later.
  - joekrill 24d ago
    Our politicians and legislators lie on camera constantly. But it doesn't really seem to matter much these days. So I'm not sure why this would make a difference.
whoamii 24d ago
Yes, let’s do something illegal to force a discussion. A discussion that already happened when writing the law…
socalgal2 24d ago
It's not illegal for you to remember, it's illegal for you to record. There's a difference. For me, I don't want to live in a world where if I say something embarrassing or not well thought out, someone pushes a button and the last 15 seconds is transcribed as evidence. That's a different world to the previous one where it would be someone's word fori it. As for the fact that phone could already do this, that's not the point. Phone users have to go out of their way to make it happen so it's generally unlikely to happen. The watch feature though is always on and just waiting for you to press "save last 15 seconds"
- gumby271 24d ago
  Same with the always-on transcription feature that you dont even need to interact with. I like not having to speak with extreme precision, knowing my words are going into some record.

magicalist 24d ago

> Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical Really disagree on this, I think all states should be two party consent, personally. > Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection? It's not illegal, it's just that the other person has to know that you're doing that and consent to it. Giving them the chance to walk away or to tell a person and their Meta glasses to fuck off is important.

voakbasda 24d ago
People are fucking liars. Everyone, everywhere, always. I want to record every conversation surreptitiously, because that’s the only way to catch them. The reason we can’t is because our politicians and legislators are the biggest liars of them all. It would spell their immediate downfall.
- lelandbatey 24d ago
  Everyone being liars means you and I are both liars, same as the politicians. But the politicians have the power and if we remove two party consent then they get to surreptitiously record you and leverage that power. It doesnt even the power playing field. We can alreay write notes down for every conversation and then send them to the person involved saying "we talked about X, Y, and Z." That last step is the key because it lets them object in writing if you mischaracterize things. From a "catching someone in a lie" the most important step is that one, because you form a paper trail where the other party can correct or contest what was written and bring that up now, and the fact that they didn't is itself evidence in case of a dispute later. The apple watch feature doesn't do that, it just dragnets everything. Even if it recorded the audio, we are in a faked-audio world so unless you have some signal that they agreed that they said a thing ahead of time, they can always deny it later.
- joekrill 24d ago
  Our politicians and legislators lie on camera constantly. But it doesn't really seem to matter much these days. So I'm not sure why this would make a difference.

whoamii 24d ago

Yes, let’s do something illegal to force a discussion. A discussion that already happened when writing the law…

socalgal2 24d ago

It's not illegal for you to remember, it's illegal for you to record. There's a difference. For me, I don't want to live in a world where if I say something embarrassing or not well thought out, someone pushes a button and the last 15 seconds is transcribed as evidence. That's a different world to the previous one where it would be someone's word fori it. As for the fact that phone could already do this, that's not the point. Phone users have to go out of their way to make it happen so it's generally unlikely to happen. The watch feature though is always on and just waiting for you to press "save last 15 seconds"

gumby271 24d ago
Same with the always-on transcription feature that you dont even need to interact with. I like not having to speak with extreme precision, knowing my words are going into some record.