When did committing felonies become a business model?

California Penal Code 632:

632 (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) 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. (c) For the purposes of this section, "confidential communication" means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. (d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. (e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees, or agents thereof, if the acts otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility. (f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear.

Come the law breakers

Note-takers that use meeting applications have a business model that allows anyone participating in an online meeting to have the contents of the meetings recorded, transcribed, interpreted, and transmitted. This happens in two ways:

• The legal way: By the provider of the service which notifies all participants to the presence of a recording and allows them to individually opt in or out of such portions of the call being recorded.
• The illegal way: By 3rd parties invited to the call who have signed up to notetakers that record, transcribe, and otherwise act on the information in the call without the permission of all parties to the call.

For reference, on my group calls this month we have an average of about 40 people on the call, including a few who dial in over the phone. And we get an average of about 8 note takers that try to join the call, which I try to identify and deny access to. But every once in a while, one gets through - because it has a long name that I cannot see all of or just doesn't identify itself as a note-taker.

No, it's not OK

They are not just recording, of course. They are using my confidential advice to the attendees, their confidential information provided on the call, and my answers to complex questions to train their AI, or usually as it turns out mistrain it.

I have spent years of my life learning lessons the hard way and I share those lessons with you through these articles, videos, and online real-time discussions. That is part of my contribution to society as a whole and the individuals who choose to join me on the calls or read my articles.

The calls are free to those who are invited, and while I do charge folks for more specific advice requiring me to spend individual time and effort and pay for services and technologies to support the effort, it's not economic compensation I am after for my expertise on these calls. It's a two way street. We have discussions, people ask questions and I try to help them in my answers. Those answers lead to other questions and engage other participants in sharing their thoughts and understandings. It's a private conversation between willing participants, under the terms that we all agree to. And as we get to know each other, we form relationships that are, I hope, mutually beneficial.

So no... It's not OK to take our discussions and relationship building efforts without consent, in violation of the law.

Not the first time

I note that this is not the first time I have seen industries founded on violating the law. Obviously, pornography, which has led the charge for many technical innovations over time. But that's not really what I am talking about here. I am talking about supposedly good people trying to do good things, who through negligence, knowingly and intentionally violate laws, or fail to even check that what they are doing is legal.

Which brings me to a short (too late?) story.

• I attended a meeting of researchers sponsored by a government agency many years ago, and as they explained their efforts and results, I notices, and spoke up, that they were breaking into innocent victims' systems and planting Trojan horses to study the criminals who were breaking into those victims' systems and planting Trojan horses.
• There is no exception to the laws in this regard for "researchers", and furthermore, the principal for research resulting from the nuclear and biological experiments on soldiers and others, it "informed consent". The participants must be informed and consent to the activities, and they have rights to see the results.
• When I brought it up, I was not thanked and appreciated for pointing out that they were violating the law, and in fact, some claimed that because they were doing research, it was OK.
• NO!!! Breaking the law is NOT OK. Committing felonies is NOT OK.
• Nobody got arrested, but the research program and many related research programs using information technology were re-examined and updated to reflect the need to not commit crimes under the guise of "research" and to discourage such violations of ethical requirements for research.

But fear not. Those social media sites are largely legally doing studies using your data and you as a target of their psychological efforts. It turns out you can do this for money, but not for legitimate research.

It's their business model

For those of you who perhaps fund these companies, if you are aware of their criminal behavior and still invest, you are potentially part of a criminal conspiracy to commit these crimes. And when I say aware of their criminal behavior, you don't have to know it's a crime. All you need to know is that they are recording online communications and fail to diligently ask how they get permission. I am not a lawyer, and you should talk to yours about this, but to be clear, my lay understanding is that if two or more people agree and one of them subsequently performs an overt act in furtherance of the crime, they are all committing the crime. And what could be clearer as a conspirator than knowingly funding the criminal acts?

Don't believe me... See what the Federal Law Enforcement Training Agency says about it at https://www.fletc.gov/audio/federal-conspiracy-law-mp3.

"... A Conspiracy can be described generally as a sort of partnership in crime. Legally, a Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons join together and form an agreement to violate the law, and then act on that agreement. The crime of Conspiracy was created to address the inherent dangers posed to society when people come together and join forces to commit criminal acts. An important feature of the Conspiracy statute is that it enables the investigator to get beyond the first layer of visible members to find and prosecute the “brains” behind a criminal scheme or organization. Specific federal anti-conspiracy statutes are found throughout federal law. State statutes also contain anti-conspiracy laws. ..."

And just in case you figure that you didn't know it was a crime, ignorance of the law is no excuse... but check with your lawyer... a criminal lawyer who specialized in this, not your lawyer who just does does contracts.

But to be clear, for the stuff I described earlier, you can no longer claim ignorance!

Get out while you can!

But you can maybe save yourself if the criminal act has not yet been taken...

"...Withdrawal from a Conspiracy requires more than simply no longer participating. To withdraw from a Conspiracy, there are two basic requirements: First – the person must do some affirmative act inconsistent with the goals of the Conspiracy. Unless the co-conspirator can demonstrate that he quit the Conspiracy, his or her participation in the Conspiracy is presumed to continue. Second – the co-conspirator must do some affirmative act that is reasonably calculated to communicate to a fellow co-conspirator, or law enforcement, that he has withdrawn from the Conspiracy. Withdrawal from a Conspiracy is an affirmative defense that must be raised and proven by the defendant. ..."

If you are investing in one of these companies, get out now! Withdraw your funds, report it to law enforcement (check with your lawyer first), or whatever you have to do to get out.

If you are working for a firm that does this, same thing... quit under protest, talk to your lawyer first.

If you are running one of these companies... Stop It!

Conclusions

In their exuberance to make money by leveraging AI, folks are apparently breaking the law. And if you are investing in them, you are also apparently breaking the law. I'd rather not see you in jail... But it's not just AI. And it's not just investors. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - so don't be ignorant ... and stay out of jail.

More information?

Join our monthly free advisory call, usually at 0900 Pacific time on the 1st and 3rd Thursday of the month, tell us about your company and situation, and learn from others as they learn from you.

In summary

Stop committing crimes. And stop letting them commit these crimes against you by reporting them to your local, state, or Federal law enforcement, depending on what they are doing.