"Are you recording my conversations, Facebook?"
"Of course not, silly! We don't listen to your conversations, we just identify the things you're listening to, of course!"
0_O
"Of course not, silly! We don't listen to your conversations, we just identify the things you're listening to, of course!"
0_O
...by recording the conversation so it can be uploaded to the server that does the recognition, because nobody is doing this kind of processing client-side.
Just like the idea that "streaming" is somehow different than "downloading", the commonly-repeated claims that this kind of technology is only "processing" without mentioning where the data is processed is a carefully constructed lie designed to frame the discussion.
The use of propaganda to confuse how their product works suggests that Facebook (et al) knows there would be resistance if they offered the same features plainly. In my opinion this should count as mens rea.
This is a half truth at best. Audio recognition can be based on one of two techniques. The first is audio watermarking which is completely client side (albeit not applicable for this FB feature) or fingerprinting. They'll likely use the latter which records a segment of audio, does the rough audio equivalent of a hash on it and then send it the server for an optimised pattern match. It's somewhat unlikely they'll send raw audio to their servers although that's an assumption.
Of course the problem is you can't control or check which of the two was done with the audio that got uploaded, and that is the scary part and reason enough not to allow anyone to record audio. But you can't just claim that facebook does in fact "listen" to your _conversation_ in any way we would understand as listening.
That can change if someone has hints or factual proof that they don't. So far I have only seen asumptions that were not in any way connected to any objective argument or fact.
Of course we can reason about why keeping as much information private as possible is a good idea, how users need to be in control of their data etc, and I agree with all of that stuff. I'm not a fan of facebook at all. For me opening facebook is a horrible experience filled with content I don't care about. And of course privacy is always an issue.
But I can't see what is gained by making unfounded statemets that in essence claim "facebook is lying, of course they record our conversation".
Or every stranger in a bar, that happens to be around me, when I post my silly "I'm wasted beyond believe" status?
In my mind, there are ramifications beyond believe there. And I am not really sure, what to make of this.
This would definitely be illegal in the UK.
EDIT: I'm not saying it's okay. I'm just asking what law is being broken.
Your law would prevent people in busy offices from making any phone calls.
RIPA http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
> It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of—
> (a)a public postal service; or > (b)a public telecommunication system.
That doesn't feel relevant.
Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/2699) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2699/contents/made
Also not relevant. This is about businesses recording calls, and how they can do so and stay within law.
The Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2093/regulation/1/ma...
Again, not relevant. And also covers temporary use of data, so if anything it allows the Facebook use.
The DPA isn't relevant unless Facebook is storing the data beyond the immediate identification of music in the background.