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

The Definition:

[Barny]

Conversation, noun:

A talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.

How many people were involved? Or are we already granting AI status as a person?

From all the available (I don't live in the US) law information I can find, CONVERSATION seems to be a key word in all of it.

Re:The Definition:

[Barny]

Found the relevant line:

For the purposes of this section, “person” means an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication.

An AI is none of those things.

Re:The Definition:

[Anubis IV]

So, two things:

1) The actual law refers to communications, not conversations, so the fact that there was a biological person on only one side of the call doesn’t matter. Communication still occurred.

2) Duplex acts on Google’s behalf and Google falls under the definition of “person” according to the law. It’s no different than when you work through an automated phone system and they warn you that the call may be recorded. Whether it’s an AI or a simple automated system, it’s still just a tool being used by the “person” on that end of the line.

But that actually raises an interesting point to consider: are these robocalls, and if so, do they run afoul of federal regulations against robocalls?

Who cares?

[PopeRatzo]

Laws don't matter any more. Break 'em or not, if nobody's going to do anything about it, go right ahead. I'm getting that directly from the top.

Lets beat the this dead horse

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares.

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.

Re:Probably not confidential under California law

[netlag1]

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".

I can reasonably expect that the NSA or another agency may be listening. So I'm free to record any call then?

PS it may still be spooky, just not illegal

[raymorris]

Btw still I understand why some might find it a bit spooky. The submission asked if it was illegal, not if it was spooky.

It would be illegal only if the other party was trying to have a confidential discussion and thought there was little or no chance that it might be overheard.

Re:PS it may still be spooky, just not illegal

[Anubis IV]

Interesting points. The law does seem to point towards the call only qualifying for protection if any party had reason to believe their communication would be private. Google clearly has no expectation of privacy, so it’s all on the recipient of the call, in which case it depends on their circumstances.

On one end of the spectrum the salon could be in a mall with an open storefront, answering the calls from the front desk where anyone could overhear. On the other end, they may only answer calls from a back office on private property with “no recording allowed” signs posted.

Either way, it’s not a good idea for Google to make assumptions. Disclosing that they’re recording is the only way this can safely work. And even then, it may run afoul of robocall laws.

Turing Test

[Anonymous Coward]

Is everyone else here missing that the Turing Test has been at least partially solved? Google has AI that humans cannot distinguish from real people (in limited interaction).

TCPA applies to solicitors. And doctors' offices

[raymorris]

The main robocall legislation is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, signed by President Bush in 1991. It generally applies to people trying to sell something. Here are the relevant FCC regulations:

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

The FTC also has some regulations based on TCPA, but again that's for solicitors.

Besides calls from solicitors, TCPA also restricts automated calls to hospitals, emergency rooms, and doctors' offices. So it may technically be illegal to use Google Assistant to schedule an appointment with a doctor. I don't think it violates the spirit of the law, though, as the law was intended to protect people from receiving unwanted, nuisance bulk calls. So long as Google Assistant does a reasonably good job, it's not a nuisance call.