Consent for All? Smart Devices, Apps Don't Need All-Party Opt-In to Record
As long as a smart speaker or voice app receives consent from at least one party, companies largely clear U.S. privacy hurdles, lawyers say.
August 28, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Facebook joined a chorus of high-profile tech companies earlier this month when it confirmed that it uses contractors to manually listen to users' audio messages to improve Messenger's AI. After a Bloomberg report revealed the practice, Facebook announced the process was on hiatus. "Much like Apple and Google, we paused human review of audio more than a week ago," a Facebook spokesperson told CNBC.
Some privacy advocates noted Facebook Messenger's policy allows transcription of all messages, even without the consent of all parties involved in the audio recording. The practice highlights how such apps and smart devices only need to obtain consent from one party to record multiple parties, lawyers said.
The Stored Communications Act allows a company to disclose data if the originator of the data opts in, noted Duquesne University School of Law professor Agnieszka McPeak.
Additionally, the law also provides a data sharing exemption if the content is necessary to deliver the service, said Otterbourg privacy and cybersecurity practice chairman Philip Berg. "One would argue they are trying to refine their artificial intelligence or voice recognition services, and it's necessary to transcribe by a human to get that service right," he said.
However, although a smart device or app records a command directed to it, it can also record background conversations. Lawyers said state consent laws can apply to this situation, but if a company isn't sharing and transcribing conversations in real-time, it still clears a significant all-party consent hurdle.
Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer partner Gary Wickert noted that, if a smart speaker or app picks up a recording of a third party, it is not an illegal interception.
What's more, "If they are 'transcribing' an oral discussion, seems to me the oral conversation would already have to have been 'recorded,'" Wickert said. He added, "If the conversation is already 'recorded,' then the sole question remaining is whether consent has been given for Facebook to record it."
When a company does obtain consent to collect and share data, lawyers noted the Federal Trade Commission is likely monitoring whether that company's activities match their privacy and collection policies.
"I think frankly, there is nothing going to prohibit them from that [manually transcribing recordings]," said Mindi Giftos, a Husch Blackwell partner and leader of the IoT/blockchain and data privacy, security and breach response teams. "The key is the companies will have to explain to customers about what they are doing."
Facebook knows firsthand the ire of the FTC after its record-setting $5 billion fine over data misuse last month, and Giftos said the social media juggernaut is being watched closely.
"I think, in light of the FTC fine and this being the second go-around with the FTC, they need to be extra careful," Giftos said. "I think Facebook needs to be very transparent about what they are doing and more importantly being accurate about what they are doing."
Likewise, some U.S. senators have expressed their interest in finding out how large tech companies are storing and sharing audio recordings and their transcripts. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, for instance, received a letter in June from Amazon.com Inc. after he requested information regarding Echo's data deletion policy.
In its response, Amazon revealed it retains records of transactions made through the Echo and doesn't delete "underlying data" needed when setting reoccurring alarms or reminders.
At the time, Dickinson Wright member Sara Jodka said that Amazon's failure to anonymize user identity in transcripts could lead to "potential liability" when the smart device records background conversations without prior consent in full-party consent states. Plus, if the device collects transcripts or information regarding protected health information (PHI), they could face a host of regulations.
"That opens you [up] to categories of information and state law protections about how that information needs to be captured and stored," she said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250