How does this work in two party consent states? It seems nuts on the face of it.
I guess they devolve liability onto the user and wash their hands of it?
I guess they devolve liability onto the user and wash their hands of it?
Argument for, there is no recording stored anywhere thus it does not need consent.
Argument against, there is obviously a recording made. A recording is made and transmitted between devices and Apple and afterwards deleted, that this happens almost real time as the conversation does not change the fact a recording exists for some short time.
Probably Argument for wins, but assume at some point the transcriptions become nearly perfect then expect it to be litigated again.
The term ''interception'' means to secretly hear, secretly record,
or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of
any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting
device by any person other than a person given prior authority by
all parties to such communication.
Oh wait, they are not helping another person to "hear", only to see the words spoken or a summary thereof. Oops, MGL has you there too:
The term ''contents'', when used with respect to any wire or
oral communication, means any information concerning the identity
of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
This may become a case of we don't enforce the laws against large companies.
Why would Apple be a party here at all? Would Sony be a party if someone records another with a walkman?
However I will respond with what I might expect to see play out:
If Sony makes a Walkman and you record with that Walkman it stays on that Walkman and you have a recording. After Sony sells you the Walkman Sony no longer interacts with you to record something, all of your recording is based on your deciding to record, and Sony has absolutely nothing to do with any recording you make.
If you use Siri recap it moves between devices and Apple analyses it to give you a recap of what was said, obviously it is something that would need to be argued in court but depending on the pertinent state laws it seems reasonable to assume that it would be argued that Apple had the recording in its possession at one point, and that they did something on an individual basis with your recording. Sony does nothing individually with the recordings, Apple does, Apple Analyzes the recording and gives you a recap.
Why would the company providing analysis of illegal recordings be liable if that's the product they're selling? Well, perhaps, as in the case of the MA statute quoted, there is something in the law saying if you do analysis of an illegal recording you are liable. That would be a pretty big "Why" in my experience.
All of this is of course open to legal interpretation because in the U.S nobody knows for sure if it is legal or not until the rulings establish the precedent. However you can often guess pretty accurately.
On edit: I had forgotten the exact content of the MA statute, going back and looking at it, it probably isn't a liability for Apple, but it isn't 100% sure it isn't (I'd say a pretty good chance though) plus as this is on a state basis, there could easily be another state that words things in such a way that it might more likely be a problem for Apple.
Apple's marketing screenshots show "Always On - Listen for conversations all day" as one of the four main options when you first turn it on.