• ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I doubt it. It would be really obvious because of the extra data traffic. People who go bananas if they found out Google chews through their monthly plan to exfiltrate audio.

        Although Google (and Apple, and all the others) are working hard to embed AI onto your cellphone, not for your own convenience but to implement client-side surveillance - i.e. digest what you see and do and distill the surveillance data on your device before it even hits the internet - so that the surveillance doesn’t attract undue attention.

        But we’re not there quite yet, and I don’t believe even Google could get away with real, proper audio surveillance today.

        That’s probably the reason why they want to create this bogus “note taking” service: to have a legitimate excuse to listen in on your audio.

        • cmgvd3lw
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          But with this new tech things are easier isn’t it. They just need to transfer just bytes of data and they will get the important bits of the call.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Is “Google” your Android phone? If so, “Google” has always been “listening” to your calls. This is nothing new, just your phone getting more helpful. Big “old man yells at cloud” energy here.

    • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Newsflash: Big Data is above the law. Didn’t you know?

      They’ll spin it as a “service” to the user and carve out an exemption that way. And 10 or 15 years down the line, you’ll hear your own words spat back at you by a fucking chatbot, but it’ll be too late by then.

    • joelfromaus@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      I live in Australian state that has two party consent for recording of phone calls, I’d love to see the legal decision that would come from this sort of recording but not keeping audio type of call record. It’d be interesting, I think.

    • steal_your_face@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Depends on the location. Some places you can’t record without other’s consent and some you can.

  • bookcrawler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Bit torn. This would be amazing when I’m a bit deaf (screw you pollen season). But where is this being transcribed? I strongly suspect that even if it’s done phone side Google will send a recording and the text output to home base for “training” purposes.

    • httpjames@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It’s certainly going to be done on device. Existing pixels can already do this with Live Captions

    • Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah. Back in the day I used to use BoldBeast call recorder. Now I use Basic Call Recorder (BCR) on my Android phone and it auto-records every call perfectly.

  • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Bruhhh, fuck off. At this point the only thing an android phone would be good for is installing another, more privacy oriented, ROM

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    That means I’ll have to try remember where the Phone app is, then find someone that would actually want to use it as well.