This is such an insane violation of privacy for everyone who communicates with or even just near a person wearing this. I cannot believe this is legal and accepted.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
If a police officer is using a body camera and you happen to be speaking nearby, is that a violation of your privacy? What about the same situation, but the body camera user is not a police officer?
Even your interaction with an "assistant" is actually a document describing a conversation between two characters, where one has dialogue of what you entered and the other is acted-out.
Edit: David was the guy in the Shrek song
-----------
Daniel refusing the king's food is a Bible story found in the Book of Daniel, specifically in Daniel 1. This event is a reference to Daniel's commitment to his faith and his adherence to God's laws, even in the face of adversity. Daniel and his friends were taken captive by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and were to be trained for three years before entering the king's service. As part of this training, they were to be fed food and wine from the king's table, but Daniel refused to eat this food because it was likely offered to idols or prepared in a way that did not comply with Jewish dietary laws.
Daniel's refusal was not just about the food's physical properties but was also a symbolic act of maintaining his religious and moral independence from the king. This act demonstrated his unwavering faith and commitment to God, showing that he would not compromise his beliefs even when faced with potential consequences.
Daniel requested to eat vegetables and drink water instead, and after a ten-day test, he and his friends appeared healthier than those who ate the king's food. This outcome further demonstrated God's favor and Daniel's wisdom and integrity.
In summary, Daniel refusing the king's food is a significant biblical story that highlights faithfulness and the importance of adhering to one's beliefs in challenging circumstances.
And wait till the very explicit AI that is meant to record everything near you ends in the very implicit one in your smartphone, computers and other gadgets which manufacturers may decide that an extra AI push may be better for the service it provides (using Hanlon's Razor here)
So you're left with 40/50 states where this device can be freely used and 10/50 states where this device can be freely used because it's a personal device and two-party consent is enforced less than jaywalking for regular people.
They are clearly attempting to circumvent the laws that prohibit this kind of activity, and their strategy likely involves fighting it in court long enough to pay off the investors or ultimately change case law. Sound familiar? It’s a common SV strategy that I personally think is grossly unethical.