this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
199 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
73792 readers
2979 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In a two-party-consent state, maybe.
But in a one-party-consent state, all that ~~Personnel~~ ~~Human Resources~~ People Ops will do is point to a clause in your onboarding paperwork where you agreed to be recorded while on company property using company telephony equipment as a condition of your employment.
As long as that's in the employee paperwork it protects companies from some liability, but what about customer-employee or customer-customer conversations picked up by the system? I suppose a sign stating that video and audio conversations being recorded would further lessen employer liability but I imagine in the future laws about AI technology used on those convos will be put in place and the use of surreptious AI conversation analytics in retail environments will be more regulated. For now though it sure seems like a free for all and I wouldn't be surprised at unethical use becoming somewhat common.
Wouldn't that be legal even in a two party consent state?
A two-party-consent state requires both people to consent to being recorded. So even if you (tacitly) agree to being recorded as a condition of your employment, if the person on the other end of the conversation doesn't then it's an illegal recording. That's why it probably wouldn't be an issue in one of those states.
But in a one party state, the other person on the recording doesn't have to consent as long as you do. So as long as you know your conversation is being recorded (again, hypothetically as a condition of employment) the other party (probably) doesn't have any recourse should your employer use a third-party to monitor it.
Presumably this is monitoring conversations between employees, all of which would have it in their contract (I'm thinking about stuff like break rooms). In fact, even in customer facing areas, corporations would just hang a sign that says 'for your safety we have recording equipment in the store' or whatever.
The article specifically called out "workplace communication platforms" so my comments were more directed at companies monitoring their instances of Zoom/Slack/Teams/etc. But it's a certain bet that Walmart will try to use AI to monitor its breakrooms to make sure nobody says the evil "U" word.