[nico]

It would be a violation of privacy if people weren’t aware/hadn’t consented

But if it was part of the terms of the new free service, and all the parties involved got a reminder message on the call… you might still not like it, but it doesn’t seem like it would be a violation of privacy

[gogogo_allday]

I’m not a lawyer, but I do live in a one party consent state. I would imagine if I setup a service here, ensured all calls originated in my state, and the person who owned the account being used consented, it would be legal. Even without informing the person on the other end of the call.

Would this violate other laws outside my jurisdiction? Probably, but that just means I won’t travel there.

I actually hope I’m wrong.

[soulofmischief]

A fantastic example of why the inherent "lack" of one party in an economic exchange is a necessary component of modern capitalism.

The only people who would be willing to use such a service are people who have likely already been systematically disenfranchised by our global economic system. Poor people.

Privacy should not be incentivized and treated as a luxury. Especially when the end result of all this training data is models which further discriminate against vulnerable third-parties and automate maximum value extraction from the average user via unprecedented amounts of emotional manipulation afforded to us by the development of user-facing generative AI. Whether through highly-targeted, ad-hoc advertisements, or discriminative insurance policies.