Read.Ai

[bust]

So someone in a stakeholders meeting used it recently which means it is now recording everything without anyone's permission.

Today the person who installed it didn't even join the meeting yet it recorded it all and sent me an email with a copy of the video and transcript.

This cannot be legal.

Thoughts

[Coss]

The legal part of the question is likely to depend on Jurisdiction. My comments are from a NZ view, though most good law tends to be similar internationally, it's not always so.

As far as I can see it's owned by a bunch of money people out of Washington ¹

The recording itself may be legal if the participants were informed of it happening. If not informed, unlikely to be so. Subsequent recordings also.

The install as an action, may be legal if the owner of the system (i.e. company's server) is informed and gives consent. Should this be a distributed install (everyone's laptop/iPhone/iPad) then it's a can of worms.

Further, distributing the video and transcript, over email or other method, may be of issue, depending on who/what/why, i.e is it a private company, government department, university, military.  

Aaaand, the person who has done this, what devices/networks are they on/exposed to with copies of said video and transcript?

Note! I am no lawyer, this my opinion on these things, having dealt with I.P. in a previous incarnation.

_____

Regarding the Proles' increasing use of Ai in all things: People are rightly seeing this tech as labour saving.

Though an asterisk should be inserted here, that says "Giving a dumb person a clever person's answer, does not make that answer true, or better or more valid."

We all know that Sales/Marketing/Others will bend reality, having a push button, to do so, for a person of diminished aforethought, can be problematic.

A long time ago when Google was a baby and they let  some of their algorithm into public view, I was dead agin the concept of, "the wisdom of the masses", being taken as fact. Or as I now put it,  "Popularity ≠ Truth".

These days I accept that Ai will be part of everything I'm exposed to going forward. As I'm an individual of no consequence, whose greatest sins are some intermittent and enthusiastic whoremongering, I don't care what the multiverse heaps on me.

It is my hope that my money in the bank remains there and is accessible for me. Though I have put some of it, into land in Laos as a bet on China in the future.

Regarding the Proles' increasing use of Ai - I'm amongst them, my disclaimer is, that I use it to answer questions I'm asking,  as another voice in the room. Not the source of my knowledge.

I should also note that everyman and his dog, with a spare 50 million and a hand to shake, is climbing on the Ai bandwagon. I foresee a future where truth may be what shareholders need it to be, look at Bezos and the Washington Post for an idea of how that works.

_____

¹ - Read AI is a privately-held company co-founded by David Shim, Robert Williams, and Elliott Waldron in 202116. David Shim currently serves as the Co-Founder and CEO of Read AI38.

with major investors including:

Madrona Venture Group

Goodwater Capital

Smash Capital

As of October 2024, Read AI had raised a total of $81 million in funding, including a $50 million Series B round led by Smash Capital24. The company's board of directors includes:

David Shim (Co-Founder and CEO)

Matt McIlwain (Madrona Venture Group)

Coddy Johnson (Goodwater Capital)

Bradley Twohig (Smash Capital)

Read AI is based in the United States, with its headquarters located at 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, Washington, 98104

 I got this from Ai  

_____

- sorry for the long answer/rant

[bust]

The legal part of the question is likely to depend on Jurisdiction. My comments are from a NZ view, though most good law tends to be similar internationally, it's not always so.

As far as I can see it's owned by a bunch of money people out of Washington ¹

The recording itself may be legal if the participants were informed of it happening. If not informed, unlikely to be so. Subsequent recordings also.

Another meeting today where it was raised. Small red light top left corner if you hover your cursor over displays a note the meeting is being recorded. Hardly notification

The install as an action, may be legal if the owner of the system (i.e. company's server) is informed and gives consent. Should this be a distributed install (everyone's laptop/iPhone/iPad) then it's a can of worms.

That's exactly what has happened however there was a invite without any disclosure that appeared on the invite to the meeting.

Further, distributing the video and transcript, over email or other method, may be of issue, depending on who/what/why, i.e is it a private company, government department, university, military.

Currently on a University project.

Aaaand, the person who has done this, what devices/networks are they on/exposed to with copies of said video and transcript?

That part I am not tech savvy enough to know or begin to understand.

Note! I am no lawyer, this my opinion on these things, having dealt with I.P. in a previous incarnation.

My concern is that because it is Ai generated, the opportunity to manipulate is limitless. Image a civil hearing over a contract dispute. Evidence or meeting statements could easily be manipulated or fabricated.

[Coss]

In the first instance I'd raise this with the University.

If it's their bod that's doing it, they may not care.