Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 191 posts

Re: Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

#101

Post by dsr_ »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #55
dsr_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you explain cryptographic signing to them?

How would you show the content and layout of an email with cryptographic signing? You could sign the screenshot with a timestamp (out of my league though to get that right) from an untamperable source to show it hasn't been tampered with. Did you mean that?

Every day, generate an archive of all the email you received. Encrypt it, sign it, and generate a hash. Put all the hashes on a public page.

Write the procedure up, and have a VP attest that they ordered this done and have audited a random sample to ensure that it was done to spec. Get the attestation notarized. Repeat once a quarter or so. If the VP moves on or dies, make sure the new VP is on board immediately.

No need to have a screenshot, it's email. When a court requires you to show evidence, you bring in the VP, the notarized statement, a copy of the code, and the encrypted and unencrypted archive for that day.

Re: Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

#103

Post by jeroenhd »

puma_ambit wrote: post #39

I stopped using them when I saw they share with everyone by default. I wanted the notes only for myself so I could be more present in meetings but not at the expense of making everyone feel like they have to watch what they're saying because it's being transcribed.

That's really only just hiding the fact that they should be watching what they're saying, though. If someone is sending a copy of our private conversation to a random third party, I'd certainly like to know about it.

If anything, this "warning" only makes me trust this service more because I don't have to wonder if this service is listening in.

Re: Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

#104

Post by jeroenhd »

formerly_proven wrote: post #42
puma_ambit wrote: post #39

I stopped using them when I saw they share with everyone by default. I wanted the notes only for myself so I could be more present in meetings but not at the expense of making everyone feel like they have to watch what they're saying because it's being transcribed.

That approach sounds like a potential problem for more-than-one party consent jurisdictions.

Even in one party consent jurisdictions you're not just allowed to send a copy off to whoever you like. Often it's permitted for personal review or for gathering evidence, but it's not necessarily allowed to sell the conversation (or send it to a third party in exchange for something else, like this transcription).

Re: Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

#105

Post by sorokod »

warkdarrior wrote: post #96
sorokod wrote: post #45

"I am not much of a privacy person but I feel completely abused in this situation" On the plus side you have been given a valuable lesson. For example: you may be more of a privacy person that you thought, you may want to be more careful about sharing your data. You may want to consider if you are paying for a service or not makes any difference in the way your data is handled.

Since tracking and selling of data, in general, is free revenue on top of any service fees, it seems to me that successful companies will over time trend towards service fees AND tracking/selling personal data.

I agree except that such company need not be successful nor do this over time.

Every day a company is not selling your data, it is "leaving money on the table" - a mortal sin.

Re: Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

#106

Post by noasaservice »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #98
that_guy_iain wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a 2 party state the user would be the one breaking the law. They installed the software... If you install recording software, you're liable for what it records. Bug or not bug, the liablity is yours. The only way you would get Otter.ai in a courtroom would be a civil case and then the not being a paying customer therefore no expectations of a warranty applies. Seriously, this thread is "I installed recording softw…

> If you install recording software, you're liable for what it records not if it's recording without your consent > Seriously, this thread is "I installed recording software and it worked on things I didn't think it would. a poor attempt to reframe the thread, which is actually about a company monitoring confidential meetings without consent if affirmative consent is such a non-issue here, why couldn't the company ge…

TBH, the pro-business blatantly illegal hot takes here on HN are expected.

Because some company figured out a 'hack' to make more money, somehow turns from illegal to "legal". And so many users here will defend that.

In this case, it's violating interstate wiretapping laws and state-based 2 party consent laws. But.. they just squint hard and go "Hey we can violate the law and make MORE money".

Uber is exactly that. So is AirBNB. So is Lime/Bird. Just go look at much of the tech companies, and it's "Offline company + way to break law to get money + ONLINE!!!!1!!1!"

Re: Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

#108

Post by password4321 »

tlb wrote: post #3

Tangential, but I often wish I had screenshots to prove I'd opted in, or out, or otherwise done the right thing. It shouldn't be too expensive to record and index the screen whenever I'm doing something important online and keep it for a week.

Take more screenshots https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32215277 20220724

> record my screen with OBS (https://obsproject.com/)

>> 1080p in 10fps might be enough and it won't take ridiculous amount of space (ffmpeg de-dupe afterward: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32215277#32223240)

--

> The space requirements can be very low capturing something like writing code (ffmpeg low fps: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32215277#32235012)

--

> (Mac shell command & AppleScript: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32215277#32219314)

--

Other OSS recommendations (there are a couple good offline Mac software recommendations as well):

https://getsharex.com - Windows

> You can also configure sharex to run tesseract ocr locally on the images

https://github.com/soruly/TimeSnap - Windows, archived

https://github.com/wanderingstan/Lifeslice - Mac

https://flameshot.org

https://tropy.org - organize images

Re: Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

#109

Post by that_guy_iain »

Etheryte wrote: post #94
that_guy_iain wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

If the bot transcribes anything GDPR considers personal data and then emails it out you're already in breach. Simply someone telling their phone number to another participant over the call would result in a violation.

It wouldn't be in breach. otherwise, you sending an email with someone's email/phone number via gmail in it would cause Google to breach it. That would be on the software user. If you use somewhere that to breach GDPR, the software provider is not liable for how the user uses it.

Re: Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

#110

Post by tlb »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #30
tlb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it comes down to an I-said/they-said about whether I checked some box, then: - if it's my memory against their database, I'd probably lose. - if it's my video capture against their database, it could go either way. - if it's me and several others' videos against their database, we'd likely win. But besides the win-lose proposition, it'd be worth something to me to be confident whether I was right or not.

But who are you trying to convince? If it's them, they can just say "ok so what" to your footage, it existing or not or coming from multiple people or not is not entirely relevant, as a company they can choose to use it or throw it away. If it's everyone else, why? What benefit does it get you to have others know you're right? You're still in the same position, with your choice discarded.

It could be a journalist writing a story about how some company sells your information despite users checking "[x] don't sell my information".

It could be a government consumer protection agency investigating the company, or a court asked to fine the company.

Post reply on HN