• Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 days ago

      Most states require two party consent to record audio otherwise it’s wiretapping.

      Acoustic ultrasonic distance mapping isn’t counted as wiretapping. They aren’t recording your speech, they’re inferring your speech.

      • Thunderbird4@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s actually the other way around. There are only 11 two-party consent states. All the rest, plus DC are single-party consent, but usually the single consenting party has to be one of the participants of the conversation.

      • matlag@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Most states require two party consent to record audio otherwise it’s wiretapping.

        That was before multi-billions dollars companies found a way to monetize this. Then they’ll intensively lobby pay lawmakers to amend the laws so that either cars get a waiver or starting up the car will be considered as a consent.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Wait, so regular “lip reading” is looking at someone’s lips to determine what they’re saying.

      Add “acoustic” and it involves sound. So… sound-based lip reading? Isn’t that just recording something with a microphone with the “lip reading” part being unnecessary?