Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgellow | Hacker News Reader

Is there anything that can legally be done against this? It feels like a breach of consent. Like, it cannot be that when one accept their voice to be recorded for _human_ training they also accept it to be recorded for LLM training

View on HN

Your comment reminded me of a funny interaction I had a week or so ago.

I got a call that started with the usual automated message, "This call is being recorded." After the person joined, I pushed the record button on my iPhone, "This call is being recorded."

They were surprised and asked why I'm recording.

I said, "You're recording, so I'm recording too."

The rep insisted that the company doesn't like this but that they will continue with the call anyway.

Anyway, I wish people took this stuff much more seriously. It always seems to boil down to, "I don't have anything to hide" type of conversations and I've never managed to convince anyone that privacy as a concept isn't about having something to hide.

What is actually perfect, when the automated voice declares the call is being recorded, you don't have to do it again. You're legally allowed to record, because both parties were informed already and agree to it.

This may not be true in all jurisdictions

Exactly, that's only one-party consent

The operators of the phone system are consenting to the call being recorded by informing you that the call is being recorded. You are consenting to the call being recorded by continuing with the call.

How is that not two party consent?

It's not a consent, because the options are "Yes" and "Yes", you cannot opt out unless you quit the call.

I mixed it up and GP is right. But you are also right (which illustrates the point GGP was making)

If you and I are in a phone call (the target of the phone call located in a one-party consent jurisdiction), I can record it or you can record it without telling the other: that's one-party consent, because one of the parties of the call consents to it

At first glance that may sound pointless, but it means a third party outside the call (e.g. phone company) could not record it without one of us consenting

By notifying that the call is being recorded, that now can create two-party consent because you are still on the line (and thus implicitly agree to the recording, but as you and GGP point out that's not always considered consent enough) -- one-party consent would have been if the company on the other side of the line simply recorded the call without telling you

Laws are different in different jurisdictions, but often the law only requires notification, not consent.

"I have nothing to hide" -> "Ok take off your cloth". Privacy is a useful social construct not some abstract mathematical concept. Everyone has stuff to hide and that's ok.

Unfortunately in practice I've never seen that line convince someone that privacy is something worth defending

Next time, announce you’re recording right after they do, when it’s still in the automated prompts.

Some aspects of privacy policies don't survive bankruptcy, I'd wager usage consent does not either. IANAL.

I don't think there's any legal weight to the purpose of a recording unless you entered into a contract that has a clause to that effect. They have to tell you that the call is being recorded because of wiretapping laws. They stick "for training purposes" on there just to soften the language and reassure you that they have a good, non-nefarious reason to record. It doesn't actually limit what they're allowed to do with the recording.

You’re years too late.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com