Did Google's Duplex Testing Break the Law? (daringfireball.net)

An anonymous reader writes: Tech blogger John Gruber appears to have successfully identified one of the restaurants mentioned in a post on Google's AI blog that bragged about "a meal booked through a call from Duplex." Mashable then asked a restaurant employee there if Google had let him know in advance that they'd be receiving a call from their non-human personal assistant AI. "No, of course no," he replied. And "When I asked him to confirm one more time that Duplex had called...he appeared to get nervous and immediately said he needed to go. He then hung up the phone."

John Gruber now asks: "How many real-world businesses has Google Duplex been calling and not identifying itself as an AI, leaving people to think they're actually speaking to another human...? And if 'Victor' is correct that Hong's Gourmet had no advance knowledge of the call, Google may have violated California law by recording the call." Friday he added that "This wouldn't send anyone to prison, but it would be a bit of an embarrassment, and would reinforce the notion that Google has a cavalier stance on privacy (and adhering to privacy laws)."
The Mercury News also reports that legal experts "raised questions about how Google's possible need to record Duplex's phone conversations to improve its artificial intelligence may come in conflict with California's strict two-party consent law, where all parties involved in a private phone conversation need to agree to being recorded."

For another perspective, Gizmodo's senior reviews editor reminds readers that "pretty much all tech demos are fake as hell." Speaking of Google's controversial Duplex demo, she writes that "If it didn't happen, if it is all a lie, well then I'll be totally disappointed. But I can't say I'll be surprised."

Comments

Probably not confidential under California law

[raymorris]

California law (penal code 632) requires consent to record a "confidential communication". It then defines what a confidential communication is and is not.

First, in order to be a "confidential communication", the circumstances must indicate that a party desires it to be confidential between only the people involved in the conversation. In a restaurant or salon, there would have been other people around. If the employee didn't whisper or take the phone into another room, nor talk about personal private matters, they probably didn't intend it to be confidential. Indeed whatever they said to some random person calling, someone they've never met, probably isn't intended to be private.

Secondly, California laws says it's not protected when the parties "may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded". (Note the word "may", may be overheard, not "will be overheard". Google assistant says "I'm booking an appointment for a client". It would be reasonable to expect that the client may be overhearing the conversation. People routinely use speakerphone while booking restaurant reservations or hair appointments, so again the restaurant or salon "may reasonably expect that the communication MAY be overheard".

If there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, if it wasn't a confidential communication, recording it doesn't violate the law.