[nagrom42]

38 states require single party consent and the rest requires two party consent. Since it is quite complicated, we advice our users to always inform everyone that the conversation is being recorded. Users can later delete recordings from their account if they desire. When users delete a recording, it will be permanently deleted from our database.

[gumby]

Maybe you could automatically elide/mute just portions of people who withheld consent. Also, if someone doesn't want to be recorded can you still retain the transcript?

[nagrom42]

That's a really good idea! We would be able to build something that allows people to only record part of the conversations.

It doesn't seem like we would be able to provide the transcript without recording the conversation. We need to obtain the audio data somehow to further transcribe it. Even if we do realtime transcription, we are still recording and transmitting the data somehow.

The only way to obtain a transcript without recording is to use a local dictation solution! But you might need to sacrifice the accuracy of the transcript in this case.

[gumby]

Also if this is used for business and all participants are employees and/or in single-party states/jurisdictions then there could be anyway for a company to indicate it has the consent of all parties.

And recorded transcription plus automatic realtime transcription of non-authorizing parties might embarrass them into allowing it. I've become persuaded over the last decade that two party consent no longer makes sense (though that means the law should change, not that there should be civil disobedience)

[nagrom42]

I agree with your second point completely and a lot of big tech companies already passively record your conversations.

Given Alexa as an example, I might have signed away my rights of all my conversations to Alexa when I first signed up for the app and the product. But Alexa would never be able to prevent other users who are not the owner from using it. I wonder how they deal with this legal grey area.