That is not true. State laws cannot interfere with the work of federal law enforcement, but can require certain behaviours.
Eg. States set speed limits. A federal LEO can break these when required for their duties (eg. chasing a suspect), but only when required (eg. if they are late for a meeting, they still have to obey traffic laws).
Body cameras do not seem to directly interfere with an LEO’s duty, unless “avoiding accountability” is literally their duty.
I've partaken in some SDD (Spite Driven Development) myself related to the Garmin ecosystem. The problem with it is once you stop caring, the development stops too.
> For a criminal barricaded in a building, what wrong with surrounding the building and waiting them out? They’re gonna need food, water, sleep eventually.
Often the claim is that would give time to alter or destroy evidence.
That’s part of it too, the bigger issue is the knowledge and consent of other participants.
I know someone who is involved in a lawsuit regarding a child, and one of the lawyers used this service to record and transcribe a very confidential meeting. Their first awareness of the illegal wiretapping by this company was when a summary email showed up at the end of the meeting. Needless to say, they weren’t happy, not just about the surreptitious recording, but also the discovery that the contents of that confidential coal will live forever in Otter’s training set. When the company was asked about this, they dismissed any kind of responsibility of their own, and noted it the responsibility of their subscribers to use the product appropriately.
That’s the problem though, getting the email with a copy of the recording may be the unwitting participants first indication that the call was recorded without their knowledge or consent.
Otters defense is that it’s up to their users to inform other participants and get their consent where necessary, the claim of the lawsuit is that Otter is deliberately making a product which does not make it obvious that the call is being recorded, and by default does not send a pre-meeting notice that it will be joining and recording.
I remember being on sensitive zoom calls and seeing Otter.ai join. Had to track down which person was using it, and even they were clueless as to how it got there, and the client kept rejoining despite the user trying to stop it.
I've never used this service so I don't know if the user was being particularly clueless or if some dark pattern was at play; I suspect it's probably a little bit of both.
You knew what to look for, and were presumably logged into a device which showed you participants... now imagine if you were on the go, or not very technical so joined from a phone using a phone # and a meeting code... you'd never see it or be aware. I contend Otter knows exactly what they are doing and hopefully this lawsuit gets them to get a bit more transparent and law abiding.
If it is just a tool then a tape recorder company should be liable as well. It doesn't do any sort of notice or make it obvious that someone is being recorded.
If the tape recorder were to automatically start recording whenever a meeting started and silently add itself to physical rooms unexpectedly... you might have a point.
The tape recorder manufacturer also doesn’t claim the right to permanently own anything it’s users record, with or without permission.
blurb: Software/Systems/Security engineer with a rather eclectic background with many lessons learned over 20+ years having worked on everything from insider threats and endpoint security at scale to hand-held embedded electronics for calibration of digital televisions and cloud based payment systems processing billions per year in giving, stay-at-home serves to enterprise servers, when one opportunity ends I am always eager for new and interesting challenges, doubly so when faced with opportunities to grow my skill set, as well as increase the breadth and depth of experience.
