>>Those last few paragraphs were really well-written and powerful and I will have to quote them if I ever need to have this argument with someone!
Thank you!
---
>>That said I do find the idea of having everything recorded mildly creepy?
I kind of understand that, but also...like, I wouldn't do this if my memory were *naturally* sufficient. My lifelogger is simply an extension of myself, a way of compensating for a thing my brain ought to be able to do but can't. Just because *most* people don't mind that their brain can't do that doesn't mean *I* should have to suffer through it.
The recordings are for my own private use. I give copies of a conversation to *other participants in that conversation* upon request (so far I have had one request, two if you count that one from Mom I wasn't able to fulfil), and in extremis I *might* use it as a whistleblowing aid, but these are not exceptions I make lightly. I'm certainly not giving them to Amazon or Google or any of those bastards. As I said in the OP, I won't transcribe them until I can do it without outsourcing to some untrusted cloud.
Also, honestly, the thing about being able to defuse he-said-she-said arguments probably isn't going to keep being true long-term as we get better at simulating voiceprints. "Pics or it didn't happen" doesn't work very well if you can also fake the pics. Eventually we probably reach a point where software memories are more *stable* than wetware but do not carry significantly more of an aura of trust: you can prove only that you are not *mistaken* about what you heard, not that you are not *lying*. Good for your own reference, but only slightly better than an eyewitness statement for third parties.
(which, I mean, that has its own problems)
---
>>(The actual price I am refusing to pay for the benefits is "Setting this up sounds like a lot of effort and I'm already behind on much more important things like housework and uni so it's not high on my Things To Do To Virtuously Improve My Life")
I have bad news for you: you live in an all-party-consent jurisdiction. With a few law-enforcement-related exceptions, you are legally required to inform everyone at the start of every conversation that you are recording it, and offer to stop if they don't like that. Lifelogging is...maybe not *strictly* illegal per se in such a jurisdiction, but *infeasible* as a routine action. It'd be more like making home videos than lifelogging, picking specific conversations and getting everyone to agree that we are preserving this one.
I live in a one-party-consent jurisdiction: as long as I have my *own* permission to record my conversations, I am not legally required to inform the other participants. Obviously it's a *good idea* to tell people you're going to be in close long-term freely-associated relationships with, you want to find out if that's a dealbreaker for them before either of you has invested too much, but that's not for *legal* reasons.
no subject
Thank you!
---
>>That said I do find the idea of having everything recorded mildly creepy?
I kind of understand that, but also...like, I wouldn't do this if my memory were *naturally* sufficient. My lifelogger is simply an extension of myself, a way of compensating for a thing my brain ought to be able to do but can't. Just because *most* people don't mind that their brain can't do that doesn't mean *I* should have to suffer through it.
The recordings are for my own private use. I give copies of a conversation to *other participants in that conversation* upon request (so far I have had one request, two if you count that one from Mom I wasn't able to fulfil), and in extremis I *might* use it as a whistleblowing aid, but these are not exceptions I make lightly. I'm certainly not giving them to Amazon or Google or any of those bastards. As I said in the OP, I won't transcribe them until I can do it without outsourcing to some untrusted cloud.
Also, honestly, the thing about being able to defuse he-said-she-said arguments probably isn't going to keep being true long-term as we get better at simulating voiceprints. "Pics or it didn't happen" doesn't work very well if you can also fake the pics. Eventually we probably reach a point where software memories are more *stable* than wetware but do not carry significantly more of an aura of trust: you can prove only that you are not *mistaken* about what you heard, not that you are not *lying*. Good for your own reference, but only slightly better than an eyewitness statement for third parties.
(which, I mean, that has its own problems)
---
>>(The actual price I am refusing to pay for the benefits is "Setting this up sounds like a lot of effort and I'm already behind on much more important things like housework and uni so it's not high on my Things To Do To Virtuously Improve My Life")
I have bad news for you: you live in an all-party-consent jurisdiction. With a few law-enforcement-related exceptions, you are legally required to inform everyone at the start of every conversation that you are recording it, and offer to stop if they don't like that. Lifelogging is...maybe not *strictly* illegal per se in such a jurisdiction, but *infeasible* as a routine action. It'd be more like making home videos than lifelogging, picking specific conversations and getting everyone to agree that we are preserving this one.
I live in a one-party-consent jurisdiction: as long as I have my *own* permission to record my conversations, I am not legally required to inform the other participants. Obviously it's a *good idea* to tell people you're going to be in close long-term freely-associated relationships with, you want to find out if that's a dealbreaker for them before either of you has invested too much, but that's not for *legal* reasons.