[BoxFour]

> Passively listening ambient audio is being treated as something that doesn't need active consent

That’s not accurate. There are plenty of states that require everyone involved to consent to a recording of a private conversation. California, for example.

Voice assistants today skirt around that because of the wake word, but always-on recording obviously negates that defense.

[zmmmmm]

Well, that's why I say "being treated"

I'm not aware of many bluetooth headphones that blink an obvious light just because they are recording. You can get a pair of sunglassses with a microphone and record with it and it does nothing to alert anybody.

Whether it's actually legal or not, as you say, varies - but it's clear where device manufactures think the line lies in terms of what tech they implement.

[paxys]

AI "recording" software has never been tested in court, so no one can say what the legality is. If we are having a conversation (in a two party consent state) and a secret AI in my pocket generates a text transcript of it in real time without storing the audio, is that illegal? What about if it just generates a summary? What about if it is just a list of TODOs that came out of the conversation?

[pclmulqdq]

Speech-to-text has gone through courts before. It's not a new technology. You're out of luck on sneaking the use of speech-to-text in 2-party consent states.

[1over137]

Of course it's new! Now it's "AI"! /s