You can vaguely record maybe one conversation you overhear in addition to one you are having yourself at the same time. You definitely can’t record every conversation in a room you’re in. A mic can’t either, but three, four, half a dozen people talking? Yeah, you can definitely pull that out of a recording.
It’s been shown that a laptop mic is enough to decode what someone is typing on a keyboard in the same room, just from the unique acoustic difference between each key.
So no. What your brain does is nowhere near the absolutely data-black-hole that a live mic in every room would be.
Once there’s enough of these, you might even cross-reference multiple recordings to assemble complete conversations between people who didn’t have one on themselves, or even spend the full duration of a conversation within range of the same recording device. That is something your head absolutely cannot do.
Oh yes. I have no doubt technology is better than my brain. I’m thinking more philosophically.
If I’m already recording the world with my brain, why can’t I also record the world with my technology? A written diary is not illegal. Why should anything more advanced be illegal? Where is the line?
You can vaguely record maybe one conversation you overhear in addition to one you are having yourself at the same time.
What if an offline system transcribes and summarizes in memory, only saving summary text of key ideas, points, things needed to be remembered for later? (not looking for a legal opinion, just an ethical one).
This is what my brain already does (imperfectly). Am I a privacy nightmare? What’s the difference between my brain and my personal recording machine?
No it doesn’t.
You can vaguely record maybe one conversation you overhear in addition to one you are having yourself at the same time. You definitely can’t record every conversation in a room you’re in. A mic can’t either, but three, four, half a dozen people talking? Yeah, you can definitely pull that out of a recording.
It’s been shown that a laptop mic is enough to decode what someone is typing on a keyboard in the same room, just from the unique acoustic difference between each key.
So no. What your brain does is nowhere near the absolutely data-black-hole that a live mic in every room would be.
Once there’s enough of these, you might even cross-reference multiple recordings to assemble complete conversations between people who didn’t have one on themselves, or even spend the full duration of a conversation within range of the same recording device. That is something your head absolutely cannot do.
Oh yes. I have no doubt technology is better than my brain. I’m thinking more philosophically.
If I’m already recording the world with my brain, why can’t I also record the world with my technology? A written diary is not illegal. Why should anything more advanced be illegal? Where is the line?
What if an offline system transcribes and summarizes in memory, only saving summary text of key ideas, points, things needed to be remembered for later? (not looking for a legal opinion, just an ethical one).