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

51–60 of 191 posts

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

#51

Post by 6644logan »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #18
6644logan wrote: post #13

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…

> If you're not a customer, you can't expect support. If you want support, pay $10 and then fill the ticket.

I think the support ticket was only mentioned in the sense that a journalist would: "we contacted the company; they did not respond to the allegations."

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

#52

Post by leaflets2 »

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.

And we others here too? :-)

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

#53

Post by [deleted] »

dehrmann wrote: post #38
MrWiffles wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by KingOfCoders »

dsr_ wrote: post #34
KingOfCoders wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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?

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

#56

Post by wnoise »

dehrmann wrote: post #38
MrWiffles wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Although the standard description is "two-party", it's almost always really "all-party".

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

#57

Post by tchock23 »

Does anyone know of a good app for voice journaling?

I use Otter for that purpose exclusively, and between this news and their recent UI changes to make the record/stop button tiny on their iOS app I'd like to seek an alternative.

I use DayOne for written journals and know it offers voice capabilities, but the limits are pretty short. I'd like something more akin to Otter.

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

#58

Post by Bakary »

kevmo314 wrote: post #48
Bakary wrote: post #44

Is there such a thing as a simple audio transcribing system that can turn a recording into a text file? I have this problem where I sometimes forget a sentence someone JUST told me. And often my notes aren't sufficient compared to a verbatim recording because I'm liable to forget important contextual info very rapidly. But dealing with raw audio files is a PITA.

Turn on closed captioning?

The more uncomfortable truth is that I'd rather be able to record on a separate device because I will get in trouble for it if it comes to light. It is legal in my region, but people will be (very rightfully) creeped out by it and are unlikely to ever buy my short term memory sob story.

OP mentioned multitasking so maybe they had a similar version of this problem. People aren't going to be happily recorded just for the purpose of someone wanting to preserve their own energy during meetings.

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

#59

Post by ShakataGaNai »

neilv wrote: post #47

I don't know whether this is bumping into a complicated legal area of audio recording consent, but your company might want to ask a lawyer (about any wrongs to the company, any obligations the company has, etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... If you're not the head of the company, you could raise it with a higher level of management, or ask in-house counsel.

IANAL But transcriptions of calls don't GENERALLY run into the multi-party consent state laws, because the concept of a non-human listening/transcribing a call didn't exist when most of those laws were created. So if the service doesn't keep a copy of the recording (they just transcribe on the fly), then it's probably legal.

That being said, most services do announce themselves in someway to cover the legal grey areas. Plus it's the right thing to do ethically.

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

MrWiffles wrote: post #32
klyrs wrote: 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN