
Facebook Transcription Opt-In Says Nothing About Human Listeners - askafriend
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-15/facebook-transcription-opt-in-says-nothing-about-human-listeners
======
wang_li
I hope they had "permission" from both sides of the conversations that they
recorded in states that require two-party/all-party consent. Otherwise, this
is more than just a privacy issue, it's criminal.

~~~
lostphilosopher
My guess is that the T&C grants permission for FB to record the primary user,
and then the liability for recording (via FB) _other_ people falls on the
primary user for recording while other people were talking?

~~~
garmaine
That’s not how criminal law works.

~~~
lostphilosopher
If I use Facebook voice-to-text around you, why is that different from using a
traditional recording device without your consent? Isn't that on me, not
whomever listens to that recording?

~~~
garmaine
Typically, intent is the distinguisher. You intended for the interaction to be
transient and transactional—you say something and text appears on the screen.
In reality and without your knowledge, the service provider intentionally
recorded, kept, and shared that data. That puts the service provider at fault
as they are the ones that arranged for he recording to happen, if if you are
he one that pushed the button.

------
daeken
This is a surprise to ~no one here, but this is absolutely a surprise to at
least a large portion of the general population. Why? Because they don't know
how these things are developed, even at a high level. To most people, systems
like these are a black box; they talk to it, it outputs text. They don't think
-- or need to think -- about what the system is actually doing. There's
nothing wrong with that.

~~~
afandian
Another weird thing I've noticed recently (in the context of Brexit and the
relaxing of standards but hey) is that people can simultaneously think:

1) They wouldn't let X do Y.

2) We need less regulation.

~~~
romwell
Add to it

3)They should ban Z from doing W

at the same time.

------
aquaticsunset
Is it any real surprise that policy and legislation in this country is so far
behind technology? Of course not - the legislators and constituents are
largely unaware of how deep data collection goes, and a lot of the watchdogs
have a vested interest in keeping quiet (paychecks, profits).

It doesn't leave much left for the watchdogs who have been screaming our
eyeballs out over how pervasive and overstepping this has become.

------
kbrwn
Has there ever been a time in history when a technology was so ubiquitous with
so few people knowing how it actually works?

Cars, television, plumbing all come to mind

~~~
nkrisc
For the average person: light bulbs, air conditioners, refrigerators,
microwaves, radios, etc., etc.

~~~
b_tterc_p
Perhaps but I think there’s a difference. I don’t know how refrigerators work,
but I can guess and within a few guesses I’ll probably get close.

I don’t know if everyone can guess how comp tech works. I’ve heard comments
about how hard it must be to code how software works. Or to understand that so
much can happen behind the scenes

~~~
nkrisc
I think most people probably can't guess how a refrigerator works. Maybe if
they remember high school physics, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Maybe I'm just pessimistic but I think you're overestimating the understanding
of science the average person has.

------
Nextgrid
Being surprised about this is like playing with radioactive sludge and then
being surprised when you get cancer.

