Post by @mattblaze@federate.social

RE: https://mastodon.social/@zackwhittaker/117242363654801025

I'm curious about what's required to activate this feature. Does it have to be switched on for each recording (in which case, it's not terribly different from the audio record feature already on most phones) or is it always on by default?

In any case, users of these devices should probably acquaint themselves with 18 USC § 2511 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511), which could make it unlawful to leave your new iPhone unattended, as well as state laws that sometimes require all-party consent.

3 Boosts

0 Likes

Seth Galitzer

@sgsax@mastodon.social 2 hr. ago

@mattblaze Can't wait to walk into a room and shout "hey siri, brick all of my devices"

Furbland's Very Cool Mastodon™

@GroupNebula563@mastodon.social 3 hr. ago

@mattblaze just out of curiosity, are there any WA laws that apply to this?

Matt Griffin

@mattgriffin@masto.ai 5 hr. ago

@mattblaze I live in Massachusetts and I think about this all the time. Especially in regards to doorbell cameras that record audio.

Matt Blaze

@mattblaze@federate.social 6 hr. ago

We touch a bit on related (and largely open) questions in It's Too Complicated: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v30/30HarvJLTech1.pdf

View (PDF)

Bruno Philipe

@brunoph@breakpoint.cafe 5 hr. ago

@mattblaze there's more detail here: https://support.apple.com/en-ca/148354?cid=general-watch-b3d8fc66-62020270

View

Matt Blaze

@mattblaze@federate.social 5 hr. ago

A decade later and it's even more complicated now.

Steve Bellovin

@SteveBellovin@infosec.exchange 5 hr. ago

@mattblaze The only thing I would add: definitions are important in law, and most statutes contain them. For the Federal wiretapping statute, they’re in 18 U.S.C. 2510.

Matt Blaze

@mattblaze@federate.social 5 hr. ago

@SteveBellovin Indeed. And almost all the definitions here are counterintuitive. (Aural vs. Oral communication, etc).

1 more reply

Matt Blaze

@mattblaze@federate.social 5 hr. ago

The Apple watch has long had audio recording capabilities. In 2018, Jamal Khashoggi (the journalist assassinated at the Saudi embassy in Istanbul) may or may not have used his smartwatch to transmit live audio of his abduction (though the facts are in dispute).

KnowAttitude

@knowattitude@m.ai6yr.org 6 hr. ago

@mattblaze
I'm curious about what is required to activate picket lines outside of Apple stores everywhere.

Matt Blaze

@mattblaze@federate.social 6 hr. ago

@knowattitude I'm trying understand how it works before deciding what the problems are.

KnowAttitude

@knowattitude@m.ai6yr.org 5 hr. ago

@mattblaze Always a wise choice.

ohir

@ohir@social.vivaldi.net 6 hr. ago

@mattblaze

(2)(iii)(d) ... is a party to the communication OR where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent ...

*OR*

Bill Ricker

@n1vux@mastodon.radio 6 hr. ago

@mattblaze normalization of always-listening has already happened.

Alas.

Hey Siri
Hey Google
Smart TV phone home

Matt Blaze

@mattblaze@federate.social 6 hr. ago

@n1vux Always listening and always recording / transcribing aren't the same, though. And who controls it matters.

mcc

@mcc@mastodon.social 6 hr. ago

@mattblaze We had a discussion about this on Bluesky; here's a document that explains the feature and a summary by @Tekgo .

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:l2trclvee5bu6rzqtpsgl6x2/post/3mv4btggzck2y

Appears:
- When setting up the watch you are asked if you want to enable it
- Some things are continuously stored in a 15-second self-destroying loop
- Some things are saved automatically when the feature is on
- Some things are saved when you press a button to preserve the last few moments
- Apple is trying to use secure enclaves as a figleaf

View

mcc

@mcc@mastodon.social 6 hr. ago

@mattblaze I am upset, and I am *very* curious what happens when Apple's "we tracked a bunch of stuff, but used security technology to make it hard for the user to get at some of it!" runs into a government who wants Apple to give them access to the stuff Apple considers "secure".

I imagine a conversation along the lines of

Apple: We can't give you that information because we put it in a box. Not even we can open the box!

Government: But you built the box, right?

Matt Blaze

@mattblaze@federate.social 6 hr. ago

@mcc Apple is casting the privacy issues as chiefly about keeping the users' recordings and transcripts private from Apple/gov't/hackers/etc. I believe they might be able to do a good job here. But that's only half the story. The other issue is the privacy of the people who happen to be around the device, who aren't Apple's customers.

It's not clear (one way or the other) if Apple has built what might be an illegal surveillance device.

mcc

@mcc@mastodon.social 6 hr. ago

@mattblaze I think that's a great point. I also kind of feel like (I haven't read the document; I apologize for talking about this without having read the document) Apple's defense against THAT point may turn out to be "oh, but we don't let the users get to the [raw audio]/[raw transcripts], they can only access [thing they can access]" but [the thing the user can access] is in some way a representation of the same data.

That might confuse a court enough to drop it but *I'm still uncomfortable*

Glyph

@glyph@mastodon.social 7 hr. ago

@mattblaze It kinda sounds like they want it to be on by default.