Can’t consent when it’s a violation of state law. Those signs are as good as the no firearms sign in GA.audio is very tricky with laws.
Huh? So on the one hand, you say that you cannot record audio without consent. Then you later claim that recording is a violation of state law, so one cannot consent to it? In which state(s) is recording, even with consent, against the law?
I said a sign does not constitute consent. Some states is only one party so they are good but allot are two party and it must be verbal on recording or written permission.
I think its limited by location. I don’t even have a services menu (I am in Canada)… which is a bummer.
The only people who can enter your home without your consent are law enforcement, with a warrant. And the public can record police actions. Anyone else who enters does so at my consent; they are informed of the posted sign, and if they do not consent they are free to refuse to enter. So their presence in my home is defacto consent.
If it ever comes down to it, I’ll be glad to go to court on that.
2 Likes
Sorry I thought it was for like a store setting. Your house is different. It’s not open to the public.
1 Like
This! Implied consent plus the sign would be all you’d need I imagine. My state only requires that “one party” is notified. Well that’s me, I notified myself, so you are being recorded, deal with it! 
And also agree on the GH size, I love my dots, so much more unobtrusive! And the line out is critical at this point for all but two of my locations.
So how does Google and Amazon deal with this, with the fact that their device is always listening? Regardless of it being local, it’s still recording in the most technical sense.
Since you brought it into your own home I would say that is consent. They didn’t put it their. That is why some are encouraging people when Wyndham puts them in the rooms to unplug them if they are worried.
1 Like
OMG guys isn’t the poor dead horse is quite thoroughly beaten now.
3 Likes
In fact, I think the average person has more to be concerned about from Google than the NSA. The NSA could not care less about me. I’m not terrorist, or a spy and a quick look at me will likely tell them I’m not on their radar.
Google, on the other hand, exists exactly to mine data about everyone with a pulse. If you use GMail, they read your email and present relevant ads. For all we know the information they gather is sold to other marketing firms.
Remember, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you!
Wait, are you talking about Google, or a car dealership? Bada Bing! 
Some of these are interesting, and some are dangerous – like the Dominos one, which I can imagine could lead to some random pizza deliveries.
There are certainly a lot of interesting possibilities that come up from Google opening up the Actions though. The Todoist integration for example now allows for a conversational approach.
There’s also the integration with api.ai, which you can tie into IFTTT, so there’s all kinds of possibilities.
https://api.ai/blog/2016/12/08/build-conversation-actions-for-the-google-assistant/
[quote=“joewom, post:1210, topic:48191, full:true”]
Can’t consent when it’s a violation of state law. Those signs are as good as the no firearms sign in GA.audio is very tricky with laws.[/quote]
That’s not a valid comparison, for several reasons. For one, the applicable law varies from state-to-state…and your assertion that two-party consent is required in “most states” is false. In fact the opposite is true, as 38 states are “one party consent” states, with only the remaining 12 requiring the consent of all parties being recorded. And there is court precedent in multiple states that being furnished with a warning that recording is taking place (like business signs of the type described by Glen) constitute implied consent, satifying the consent requirement (N. Carolina, for example).
Secondly, the fact that “no guns allowed” signs have no force of law in GA is because that would constitute a legal restriction on conduct, and there is no statutory support for such a restriction. On the other hand, the effect of signs informing customers that they’re subject to electronic recording on the premises of a business is simply to satisfy a requirement that the customer be given an opportunity to give (or not give) informed consent.
1 Like
Japan’s version of Alexa and GH is a holographic anime girl in a tube called the Gatebox.
http://www.hsunews.com/2016/12/17/gatebox-virtual-home-robot-automates-your-home/
N. Carolina and Georgia? Those states are still fighting for the right of businesses to refuse to serve customers period, so I’d be surprised indeed if they prevented businesses from deploying implied consent in recording customer interactions.
All I’m saying is video and audio are to separate animals. You can video anyone in public. Recoding what they are saying is different. I’m not a lawyer but the school here I. GA had us sign saying they record audio. Yes my only option was not sign and they can’t ride the bus or go to the school. Didn’t have to sign to acknowledge video. But really this is off topic and unless anyone here is a lawyer it’s just a debate of opinion which everyone has one.
Every state is different period. And laws on the books are changed if there is a court opinion so just reading a law is does not mean a court changed its interpretation. As with a waivers people sign to play sports they are only as good as the judge your in front of. Court is were you find out if your right or wrong.
Gee, I wish I’d said that. Oh, wait…I did…in response to your ( quite incorrect) blanket claims about what the law is, including your utterly false claim that “most states” require two party consent.
Seriously, you really need to recognize when you’re already at the bottom of a hole of your own making, put down the shovel and stop digging it deeper.
Great you win I’m wrong because I really have better things to do anyway. And could care less honestly. Happy now?