Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: Otter.ai bot recording meetings without consent

news.ycombinator.com

31–40 of 191 posts

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

#31
post #23

The big names provide recording and transcription now - Zoom has it, Teams has it (Teams apparently does it realtime and live and it's not bad, great for the deaf!). I suppose those are part of paid plans, and they trigger the "your shit is being recorded, dude." warnings.

Webex...

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

#32
post #28

Depending on where you live, that might violate wiretapping laws. Most of North America requires at least one party consent.

I’m not in agreement with this idea, but i wonder if these companies could legally be considered a participant and therefore the one party consenting…

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

#33
post #23

The big names provide recording and transcription now - Zoom has it, Teams has it (Teams apparently does it realtime and live and it's not bad, great for the deaf!). I suppose those are part of paid plans, and they trigger the "your shit is being recorded, dude." warnings.

Don't the need the permission of all participants to transcribe?

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

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a screenshot really prove anything, though? It would be trivial to modify

When working a large enterprise, legal asked technology if we could create and store a screenshot of every email going out for evidence in court.

Did you explain cryptographic signing to them?

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

#36

There are plenty of places where this is illegal wiretapping, whether it’s you doing it or otterai is debatable. https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/

In an all-party consent state you would need everyone in the call to consent for recording to be legal, but even in one-party consent states you would still at least need OP's consent to be recording! If the user says no and they record anyway, I can't think of any state where that's legal (though the EULA probably has something covering that, unsure if that holds up in court).

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

#37
post #28

Depending on where you live, that might violate wiretapping laws. Most of North America requires at least one party consent.

I’m not in agreement with this idea, but i wonder if these companies could legally be considered a participant and therefore the one party consenting…

Interesting thought, that's something that could be buried deep in a EULA.

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

#38
post #28

Depending on where you live, that might violate wiretapping laws. Most of North America requires at least one party consent.

I’m not in agreement with this idea, but i wonder if these companies could legally be considered a participant and therefore the one party consenting…

It probably counts as one-party consent, but not two. California requires two.

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

#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.

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

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need a more privacy focused app, you just need another app and probably to become a customer so you can get the support you clearly want. A local transcription, manually triggered service would solve the concern I think. > You don't need a more privacy focused app, you just need another app and probably to become a customer so you can get the support you clearly want. I think there's a difference between…

> I think there's a difference between free users with a "hey, my app is broken" complaint and "hey, you just did something incredibly wrong" complaint. It would be like if free Dropbox started uploading random files that it wasn't allowed to in the settings. The thing is, you would need to review each of the complaints to know which is which. If you're providing no support and because you're not taking money for the…

> because you're not taking money for the service there is no real liability

Just because you're not taking money doesn't mean you can break the law without liability! Even outside of GDPR/CCPA, most states require all parties to consent in recording and every state requires at least one party to consent in recording.

I do agree that this is the kind of service worth paying for if you want privacy and I'm not a lawyer so I can't say that this is actually illegal, but if you're ignoring not just "hey this is incredibly wrong" tickets but "hey this is illegal and I'm warning you before I file an official complaint" that seems like it will end poorly.

Post reply on HN