MacKenzie, Sigalos, Annie Palmer , CNBC; Always on, always listening: New AI devices are pushing legal limits and could put users in jeopardy
"Many state wiretap and eavesdropping laws are written around whether a private communication was intercepted or its contents were acquired — not simply whether a conventional audio recording was created.
Colin Zick, a privacy and data security attorney at Foley Hoag, said Apple appears to have learned from the first wave of litigation over voice assistants. But the new technology raises questions those earlier cases never had to answer: Can a system that is continuously listening, interpreting speech and turning it into a summary still amount to an interception if it never saves the underlying audio?
Some state laws define interception broadly. Massachusetts, for example, defines an intercepting device to include equipment capable of “transmitting, receiving, amplifying, or recording” a communication, while the “contents” of a communication can include its substance and meaning.
In Zick’s view, a device that continuously receives speech and produces a written summary could potentially fall within that language even without retaining an audio file.
And in some states, the bigger legal risk may fall not on Apple, Amazon or other AI gadget makers but on the person wearing the device."