3 ms·

I wouldn't be shocked to learn that their interpretation of "not listening in" does not include reading speech-to-text transcripts of conversations.

• OldSchool 13y ago
  Agreed. While speaker-independent speech recognition has ever-so-slowly progressed to the point where it only mostly sucks it's probably good enough to log a general transcript. Combine that with the temptation to store compressed audio at 1KB/sec and 1.5GB/year would likely easily cover fully documenting every conversation you have without "somebody listening in." This assumes 2000 minutes/month, way more than I use, but I need to average in females... Divide that by two if you simply log per-conversation instead of per-phone and we're at 0.75GB/year/person. I think we can safely assume that you have privacy only when speaking in-person, and that's if you're not under some sort of investigation. Otherwise, find a windy place outdoors (near a large body of water for dramatic effect) and mumble through your conversation even if you're just a Hipster preparing for next weekend's party.
• flogic 13y ago
  I suspect it means "We don't have a guy listening to your line in real time."
  • mtgx 13y ago
    Or even better: "We said we aren't listening to your phone calls. We didn't say we aren't listening to a lot of phones, just (probably) not yours. Their word manipulations are sickening. I just wish all of this went to a trial already and to the Supreme Court. Let's see them lie through their teeth to the judges then, who will actually understand everything they're saying or avoiding saying (unlike most of the press, or people out there).
    • gojomo 13y ago
      But even if they lost at the Supreme Court, wouldn't they just appeal to the Secret Supreme Court?