With "use it or loose it" brain feature, I don't really want my natural recap skill to atrophy to make me dependent on this sort of tech. Not considering that they can secretly ship other monitoring features to constantly scan for certain discussions.
I like the idea (weâll see about the execs). It seems to record what I would remember anyway (âyesterday you and Joe and Anupam talked about going fishing a chose a dateâ) unless I was distracted.
Itâs like the cameras in the glasses. If all they said is what _I_ know (âThatâs Julie who worked in the same group as you at company Z three years ago. You also ran into her at the grocery store shortly after you quit Z and it was awkwardâ but not tell me anything about Julie I wouldnât know, like spouse or where she now works or anything like thatâ) it would be an excellent prosthesis. Public figures have humans who do this for them.
Unfortunately the glasses makers donât understand the difference and make it too general and privacy destroying. This Apple thing might be OK in my opinion..but the reality remains to be seen.
I would love to have AI that can help support my fragmented memory. As my mom said, I'd forget my head if it wasn't attached. However, this requires a lot of TRUST with the company this access. Apple is the only big tech I could trust but I'm still unsure.
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.
Thatâs actually a good thing to me, wasnât going to get another Apple Watch anyways - now thatâs an even firmer decision now.
My reasoning so far was that I absolutely didnât get the use out of it I envisioned and, to my even bigger surprise, the integration between Watch and iPhone wasnât even that goodâŚ
Crazy that this is about to be normalized. Can't help but think the discourse of "they already record everything anyway" of the past couple years (even in the absence of complete proof) has played a part.
Never thought it would be Apple to normalize it either. Iâve been in the ecosystem because they have a proven track record of privacy and security and taking principled stands.
Iâm sure the NSA is salivating at this and I donât trust the current administration not to legislate back doors.
Terrible misstep from Apple from my perspective. This is their âthey removed Donât Be Evil from the websiteâ moment for me.
There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof". People have identified basically everything coming from the network stack of an iPhone.
This is already normalized in most modern office buildings. There are video and audio recording devices in virtually all common areas. This started a bit after private offices were done away with.
>There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof".
You may have a different understanding of the word "complete" than the standard definition.
Unless you are claiming the verifiers kept the watches being tested under constant survellance for several years, the proof you are alluding to may only prove that it is not routinely sending or recording data. It does not prove they can't turn it on whenever they feel like it, or when obeying a time-limited and geofenced mass surveillance order.
Quote: "Watching this Apple event tout how iPhones will soon be able to record ambient audio/conversations and transcribe "high level notes" for you. It's billed as private and end-to-end encrypted, but I think the bigger harm is the normalization of always-listening devices. It's creepy and not normal."
Personally I think it's a silly risk for Apple to do this - but don't Granola and a bunch of other high profile apps already do this? Add to that the number of meetings I'm on now filled with 'John's AI companion' recording the entire thing largely because people enable this nonsense and don't know or care how to stop it. The ship has sailed sadly. The more of this always on recording we have the more society is going to change. We already hear about young people scared to have fun because they might be recorded. Next it'll be people scared to share opinions (or anything gossipy) because it could be recorded and plausible deniability no longer exists.
With "use it or loose it" brain feature, I don't really want my natural recap skill to atrophy to make me dependent on this sort of tech. Not considering that they can secretly ship other monitoring features to constantly scan for certain discussions.
This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts.
https://www.romanolaw.com/can-i-record-a-conversation-in-mas... (Linking to discussion, not the statute, because it confirms that it is in fact enforced.)
Come to think of it, this would also include smart glasses, etc. And whatever those LG devices were doing. Paging the AG...
I like the idea (weâll see about the execs). It seems to record what I would remember anyway (âyesterday you and Joe and Anupam talked about going fishing a chose a dateâ) unless I was distracted.
Itâs like the cameras in the glasses. If all they said is what _I_ know (âThatâs Julie who worked in the same group as you at company Z three years ago. You also ran into her at the grocery store shortly after you quit Z and it was awkwardâ but not tell me anything about Julie I wouldnât know, like spouse or where she now works or anything like thatâ) it would be an excellent prosthesis. Public figures have humans who do this for them.
Unfortunately the glasses makers donât understand the difference and make it too general and privacy destroying. This Apple thing might be OK in my opinion..but the reality remains to be seen.
I would love to have AI that can help support my fragmented memory. As my mom said, I'd forget my head if it wasn't attached. However, this requires a lot of TRUST with the company this access. Apple is the only big tech I could trust but I'm still unsure.
Never bought a smartwatch, even when I was in love with the Pebble. I hate having to charge it every day. I don't need notifications on my wrist.
I have a Casio that has a 10 years battery and dual timezone I need when I travel and a TAG Heuer when I need a "better looking" watch.
I don't need to track steps or trainings. Even when I did it was with stupid gadgets like early fitbit bands without displays.
When I will need something that will alert people when I fall (in many years from now, hopefully) I will use a specialized device.
* You don't need a smartwatch. *
>I hate having to charge it every day
My smartwatch lasts 10-14 days.
>I don't need notifications on my wrist
I do, as I hate missing the few calls I get, and I love being woken up by a vibration on my wrist instead of a blaring alarm.
I won't address the rest as it's quite subjective, but honestly saying you donât need a smartwatch is bordering on ragebait.
Thatâs going to be a hell of a security risk for us. I think itâll be a no watches policy in the office going forward.
I donât think it bothers me, as long as the audio isnât stored⌠but I can definitely see why it would bother some people.
The device microphones are already always listening, this just makes use of that sound a lot more than just listening for âhey siriâ.
Iâm audhd - I LOVE this. It will be so helpful (I hope)
How does this work in two party consent states? It seems nuts on the face of it.
I guess they devolve liability onto the user and wash their hands of it?
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.
It is "not stored" "not recorded".
Thatâs actually a good thing to me, wasnât going to get another Apple Watch anyways - now thatâs an even firmer decision now.
My reasoning so far was that I absolutely didnât get the use out of it I envisioned and, to my even bigger surprise, the integration between Watch and iPhone wasnât even that goodâŚ
Crazy that this is about to be normalized. Can't help but think the discourse of "they already record everything anyway" of the past couple years (even in the absence of complete proof) has played a part.
Never thought it would be Apple to normalize it either. Iâve been in the ecosystem because they have a proven track record of privacy and security and taking principled stands.
Iâm sure the NSA is salivating at this and I donât trust the current administration not to legislate back doors.
Terrible misstep from Apple from my perspective. This is their âthey removed Donât Be Evil from the websiteâ moment for me.
There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof". People have identified basically everything coming from the network stack of an iPhone.
This is already normalized in most modern office buildings. There are video and audio recording devices in virtually all common areas. This started a bit after private offices were done away with.
>There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof".
You may have a different understanding of the word "complete" than the standard definition.
Unless you are claiming the verifiers kept the watches being tested under constant survellance for several years, the proof you are alluding to may only prove that it is not routinely sending or recording data. It does not prove they can't turn it on whenever they feel like it, or when obeying a time-limited and geofenced mass surveillance order.
built a meeting bot once, forgot the consent chime, legal killed it same week
Quote: "Watching this Apple event tout how iPhones will soon be able to record ambient audio/conversations and transcribe "high level notes" for you. It's billed as private and end-to-end encrypted, but I think the bigger harm is the normalization of always-listening devices. It's creepy and not normal."
https://mastodon.social/@zackwhittaker/117242363654801025
Yea were they not paying attention during the Microsoft Recall debacle?
Personally I think it's a silly risk for Apple to do this - but don't Granola and a bunch of other high profile apps already do this? Add to that the number of meetings I'm on now filled with 'John's AI companion' recording the entire thing largely because people enable this nonsense and don't know or care how to stop it. The ship has sailed sadly. The more of this always on recording we have the more society is going to change. We already hear about young people scared to have fun because they might be recorded. Next it'll be people scared to share opinions (or anything gossipy) because it could be recorded and plausible deniability no longer exists.