Google’s Duplex that calls businesses on the behalf of users has sparked a bit of controversy among them. It is rumored to send users’ query to the data center for analysis, which is a violation of two-party consent law. The recordings should be taken further only after the users’ consent and this is the problem with Google Duplex. Google has not responded anything on the issue and this is more of a concern.
In California, the Penal Code section 632 forbids “confidential communication” recordings without the consent of all the parties. The law is more about the laws on the public recordings that need to abide by some of the laws particularly in the state of California. As per the laws, such conversations cannot be recorded until both parties have given their consent for the same.
Google, on the other hand, has not given any information on how Google Duplex works. So, claiming anything on the issue will get a bit sooner now. Without speculating anything, let’s get deeper into the news. So, as per the details, the Duplex will have your information analyzed prior to booking your appointment to a Salon or to a doctor. Getting a confirmation on visiting the Salon is ok, but what about getting the doctor’s appointment when you know your personal health data will be at stake to be analyzed by third-party prior to booking the appointment? I cannot say much on that as no official information has been presented by Google so far on the matter.
As per a second assumption, worth to mention, just like any other Google services, Duplex work also take place in a data center somewhere. The fact that the Google device just records the concerns and sent the data to be analyzed makes the allegation more prominent that the data is shared. This sounds bad for Google as no one confirms or consents to get his/her data shared as soon as someone picks up the phone call.
One thing is clear from this, Google wishes to mask the fact that the users are talking to an AI assistant to get their appointments booked. And, Google, if start asking for the consent for sharing users’ data may fail even to get the permission. That’s a bit hazy actually. “There’s a little legal uncertainty there, in the sense of what degree of permanence is required to constitute eavesdropping,” this is what Mason Kortz of Harvard believes on the fact.