She was chatting with friends in a Lyft. Then someone texted her what they said

Right. We've had mass data collection tools for a long time, web trackers, CCTV, microphones etc.

But what AI brings to the table is how much easier it makes it to combine and analyse all that data, build peoples' profiles. It scales infinitely better than hiring human analysts to track someone. It's too cheap and too tempting.

This should have been something that everyone saw coming, but it can be hard to imagine what's happening before it does, particularly when you yourself aren't incentivised to - companies with access to your phone through an app (and the phones of the people around you) are going to spy on you, and that data will (almost assuredly) not be secure. It's probably going to be abused. It's absolutely going to be sold.

I just went to delete my Lyft account (which I haven't used in several years), but I'm unable to do so without first accepting their new terms of service, which I don't/won't. There doesn't seem to be any means of contacting Lyft outside of their app or website, both of which require that I agree to those afore mentioned terms before contacting them. This seems illegal in at least some US jurisdictions, but

This seems foreboding of some very dangerous situations for marginalized or targeted groups in the future.

>So your response is to accept someone's speculation when the company themselves says they are piloting a recording program in the US (however they say the case in the article was not part of this). Given what is in the article, the speculation you linked to is irrelevant.

I don't see how it's irrelevant given the recording program was in the US, and contrary to Trump's bluster, Canada isn't the 51st state yet.

>You are taking a threat model that assumes all recordings have equivalent risk of leakage. On a long enough time scale, you're probably right. I think there is a spectrum of risk that is also based on trust. I trust a company focused on audio/video to handle the materials appropriately a lot more than I do a company where this isn't their core competency.

The problem isn't necessarily that Zoom itself will get hacked, it's that such recordings can get leaked by someone else. Zoom has a quota for recordings, so they often get uploaded to the company's network share/sharepoint, which are routinely targeted in ransomware attacks. Moreover, that's not even the only threat I mentioned. Zoom might be a well known company that has reputation at stake, but the lowest bidder that a megacorp contracted out to provide call center software might not. Finally, if voice cloning is as easy as you claim, there are far easier ways to get a sample. It's not hard to call you with a made up pretense (eg. "are you [spouse]'s emergency contact?") to coax you into producing enough speech samples for voice cloning.

>While /any/ recording presents a risk, recordings you are unaware of are significantly higher risk because you can't do much of anything about them.

Is anyone seriously going to stop calling customer support because of "voice cloning"?

>You are making a false equivalence and desperately trying to defend it. The two things are not the same.

I'm not claiming they're equivalent. Quoting my initial comment:

"you should be far more concerned about recorded zoom meetings or customer support calls"

I'm not sure how you can possibly interpret that to mean "zoom recordings are the same as lyft recordings"

Stalkers don't usually suffer from lack of public information about their targets.

But catching stalkers would be a lot easier. We'd have a public audit log of everybody who looks up public information.

Same as we do now for doctors who look up info on people, say celebs or exes, who aren't their current patients.

> This is just extrapolating into trends as a thought experiment

The late 2000s and early 2010s are here to deliver their "I told you sos". This is the surveillance systems they were warning you about. And then so many people ended up taking paychecks to go build those systems that it's now cringe to care about how morally abhorrent they are.

What, you think it's only the US government and only under rulers you dislike who we should be against having surveillance data?