Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

There are very strict federal and state laws around who can or cannot record phone calls and how admissible they are in court.

View on HN

I know the not-so-strict laws in my jurisdiction, yet my servant of Google will never deign to permit my recording of any phone calls that go through its delicate body. If I wish to record a phone call, I'll need to put it on speaker and use a second device with mic to pick it up through an oxygen-rich fluid medium.

If anyone knows how to convince Android to change his mind, I'm "all ears", as they say.

* Android is obviously masculine gender, but I've named my phone "Kathryn". Hmm...

The laws that prohibit phone call recordings without consent is orthogonal to any evidence law that might prohibit their admission in a court case. The fact that they're phone calls has no bearing on admissibility AFAIK (please cite case law if you think I'm wrong).

IAAL, not providing legal advice etc.

Completely orthogonal to a business's employees' internal communication about that business.

New chat app idea: You "text" a locally running TTS model that uses your phone's modem to call the recipient and talks to the recpient, and replies (from another TTS model on the other side) are run through STT model and appear as text replies.

Yea, interesting, this is where we are.

But pushing this absurdity a bit further, what exactly makes it a voice call instead of a text chat? Either way, there are bits moving over wires.

Let's make a new "voice codec" that can trivially encode and decode to text (like Speak'n'spell phonemes) so that the bits on the wire technically represent some "audio data", but with much less overhead than the usual TTS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com