----

EDIT: So the crux of the matter is whether-or-not having Otter AI automatically join meetings via their Slack/Zoom/etc integrations is by-itself legally wrong - or not:

> "In fact, if the meeting host is an Otter accountholder who has integrated their relevant Google Meet, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams accounts with Otter, an Otter Notetaker may join the meeting without obtaining the affirmative consent from any meeting participant, including the host," the lawsuit alleges. "What Otter has done is use its Otter Notetaker meeting assistant to record, transcribe, and utilize the contents of conversations without the Class members' informed consent."

I'm surprised the NPR article doesn't touch on the possible liability of whoever added Otter in the first place - surely the buck stops there?

Today, you invite someone to a private repo and the code gets exfiltrated by a collaborator running whatever AI tool simply by opening their IDE.

Or you send someone an e2ee message on Signal but their AI reads the screen/text to summarize and now that message is exfiltrated.

Yes, I know it’s ”nothing new” ”in principle this could happen because you don’t control the client”. But opsec is also about what happens when well-meaning participants being accomplices in data collection. I used to trust that my friends enough to not share our conversations. Now the default assumption is that text & media on even private messaging will be harvested.

Personally I’m not ever giving keys to the kingdom to a remote data-hungry company, no matter how reputable. I’ll reconsider when local or self-hosted AI is available.

I'm sorry but this is another example of not checking AI's work. Whatever about the excessive recording, that's one thing, but blindly trusting the AI's output and then using it blindly as a company document for a client is on you.