Watches are fashion, for most people, rather than a necessity.
That said there are definitely days when I wander out of the house with a watch and no phone. Fewer these days as I use an app on my phone to pay for bus/tram/train fares, but its still nice to be able to do things without the need for a phone.
You just ignored the previous point. You linked to the audio never getting recorded or leaving the device. The previous post said the transcription of that audio leave that part of the device. They must, otherwise they could not be displayed and saved.
Why does the 15 seconds matter? My conversations with friends would be vastly different if I knew at any second they could push a button and get a transcript of what we just said. I'd pretty much never make a joke again.
Now imagine knowing that they'll go home and be able to see a nice summary of the various conversations throughout the night. Just very normal social behavior, made easy by Apple.
I think they gave us enough information to understand their legal strategy. They will argue that the watch has sufficient processing power to transcribe the text in real time, and a plain text transcript is not a recording.
It likely stretches the definitions compared to what most people who do not want to be recorded think the laws should prevent, but on the other hand at least it couldn’t be used as legal evidence. It sounds intended as a memory aid, where passing a transcript for gossip purposes will hopefully be met with automatic skepticism as something that isn’t authenticated in any way and could be made up entirely.
They probably spent enormous amounts of time weighing how much legal jeopardy it would create for their customers.
I can’t tell how California law treats e.g. hitting the little microphone icon on the iPhone with the notes app open (realtime live transcription w/no recording that I know of) versus the voice memo app (illegal without all-party consent, as it creates a recording).
The world’s fastest smartphone typist can do what the mic icon does. In, say, court, “look I typed this” & “look this was dictated” would seem to be just as trustworthy since either can be edited after the fact. And someone could type and say it was transcribed, or transcribe and say it was typed. Whereas the law doesn’t want us voice recording and having the actual (forensically provable? w/the right budget?) record, unless everyone agreed.
Thanks! I think this is it. Even though it was on the front page I think I didn't realize the topic was old enough to have 24hr old comments as it was not on the front page 10hrs earlier
Ridiculous and trivially provably false. (maybe Danish are different)
Go to any intersection in SF or LA. Set up a camera. Count the number of cars and cyclists that break a traffic law. Cars will be 5-10% breaking the laws. Cyclists will be 95-97% breaking the laws.
That's what a bunch of researchers did in Florida and found cyclists more compliant:
> According to the study, bicyclists were in compliance with traffic laws 88 percent of the time during the day and 87 percent of the time at night. The observed compliance rate for drivers who interacted with participants was slightly lower, at 85 percent during the day. (There weren’t enough nighttime driver observations to report a compliance rate.)
My apartment overlooks a three way intersection. Drivers block the box almost every light cycle in rush hour. The most common traffic offense I see bikers make is riding on the sidewalk, which they obviously do because they fear being killed by drivers.
Please go do it then. I've done this in San Diego, it was 19/20 failing to stop for cars, the one who did failed to stop behind the painted line. There were only 2 cyclists and they also slowly rolled through the intersection.
Yeah, it's not like drivers text while driving, go over the speed limit, fail to signal, fail to fully stop at stop signs, run red lights, tailgate, or park in the bike lane, right?
reply