this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
294 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
88301 readers
2995 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s not recording. Here is the privacy paper if you’re interested.
https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Audio_Intelligence_Privacy_Overview_Sep_2026.pdf
It says it IS recording, then the recording is transferred to the user's iPhone where it's transcribed and the recording is then deleted and the transcription is uploaded.
It's still recording. And transcribing conversations where someone should have an expectation of privacy.
Did you read it? According to Apple it’s not recording. It’s also not transcribing, it’s just a summary.
If the SoC is receiving a signal from the microphone and storing it in RAM at all, it's fucking recording!
With this definition, it’s not different from before. Pretty much any smartwatch or smartphone or noise cancelling earbuds record by this definition. The new thing is the automatic summaries. But for example, all modern Apple devices can listen for Hey Siri constantly, and other brands have something similar. Noise cancelling earbuds record and process the noise they’re cancelling (and Apple’s can listen for Hey Siri). Laptops do it too.
by that same logic a hearing aid is recording, not that I disagree.
It's recording into the device memory and then transferring to the iPhone's device memory. It's still recording.
Also it says it does transcribe it. "On-device speech recognition transcribes the audio to text, and then an on-device language model generates a condensed version"
I think this is an option that a user can enable. So it's not something apple is doing without the users knowledge. Still, other people may not be aware they are being recorded and that the person is getting summaries of the conversation.
I'm sure there are audio recording apps available for iWatch which could be used more nefariously. Still, I'm not sure it would be legal for a person to create and use a device that "secretly" transcribes audio, but it's Apple so I'm sure their lawyers can figure it out.
Depends on the state. Some states require everyone involved to know they're being recorded, some only require single participant consent.
Can you just read the document in full? It’s not that long. I don’t want to quote the whole thing.
It doesn’t record to device memory, it’s a continuously overwritten stream of data into the Secure Enclave.
This this absolutely nothing like what an off the shelf recording app would do, and it would be impossible for an app to access any part of this pipeline.
Yes technically there is a transcription step in this pipeline, as you referenced. But again, this is a continuously overwritten buffer inside of a black box where the output is a high level summary.
Yeah it's in the secure enclave RAM while it's processed. RAM is memory.
In my state it is illegal to transcribe and summarize a conversation if both parties do not consent. Saying that it records and transcribes and summarizes really quickly doesn't seem like a valid defence.
This is just trying to find another edge case legal loophole. It's creating a summary of every conversation; therefore it's recording, by the very definition of the word. Just because it's not a word for word transcription doesn't mean it's not a record.
Just because every word wasn't written down doesn't mean I'm ok with it.
It doesn't matter. Wiretap laws, including federal and many state laws, don't care if the recording is saved or even if an audio recording is created in the first place. Under the Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510(4)), an "interception" is defined as the "aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device." Many state laws make it illegal the moment the audio is saved into an ephemeral buffer, which Apple does.
*facepalm
Not to you for being helpful and posting relevant info, but for Apple for being such ridiculous assholes.
You're completely missing the point. You're referring to recording as a noun but everyone else is referring to the verb, the act of recording. The very fact that it is capturing data for further processing regardless of how long it is stored or where is the problem.
It is recording (v), but it's not producing a recording (n). That will probably turn out to be an important legal distinction.
There will be a lot more legal complications with the summaries because people will have an expectation of reliability. It's pretty unlikely that they will be consistently reliable enough, or consistently avoid privacy traps, like HIPAA.
Regardless, it's creepy.
You confuse "a recording" (final product) with the action of recording, even if it it streamed and processed on the fly, the acquisition of the sound for that purpose is still recoding.
If it takes the audio and sends it to anywhere (for example to the nearest iphone), then nobody needs to ask anymore what they call it in their fancy papers 😉
Not sure why you're being down voted. They do claim it is not "recording". It's a circular buffer. This is what they think will make this ok in 2 party concent states
I was 100% expecting downvotes for quoting a paper and including the source. It’s fine.
You won’t be recording me I guarantee it.