this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
212 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59201 readers
2994 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A two-party-consent state requires both people to consent to being recorded. So even if you (tacitly) agree to being recorded as a condition of your employment, if the person on the other end of the conversation doesn't then it's an illegal recording. That's why it probably wouldn't be an issue in one of those states.
But in a one party state, the other person on the recording doesn't have to consent as long as you do. So as long as you know your conversation is being recorded (again, hypothetically as a condition of employment) the other party (probably) doesn't have any recourse should your employer use a third-party to monitor it.
Presumably this is monitoring conversations between employees, all of which would have it in their contract (I'm thinking about stuff like break rooms). In fact, even in customer facing areas, corporations would just hang a sign that says 'for your safety we have recording equipment in the store' or whatever.
The article specifically called out "workplace communication platforms" so my comments were more directed at companies monitoring their instances of Zoom/Slack/Teams/etc. But it's a certain bet that Walmart will try to use AI to monitor its breakrooms to make sure nobody says the evil "U" word.