I think the article is extremely interesting: As I kept reading, it eventually dawned on me that what had disturbed the author and gotten their attention at all was really just that a customer survey used the same title they had used when saving the interview recording file. The title was the name of their informant, and I think they were shocked Otter played an informant's name back at them.
It seems like they never before considered the implications of using the service and sending interview contents off-device at all.
If this is representative of the trade, I think as tech we have a lot of education left to do for everyone's safety. And if it is, good on the author for making it transparent. I feel like they learned a lot researching the article and basically put their own inadequacies on display for public scrutiny, which many others may not do.
Consider this next time you update your company's Privacy Policy and wonder if it's understandable, to who, can be discovered at all, etc. Do your users understand what of their data you have and how you use it?
It seems like they never before considered the implications of using the service and sending interview contents off-device at all.
If this is representative of the trade, I think as tech we have a lot of education left to do for everyone's safety. And if it is, good on the author for making it transparent. I feel like they learned a lot researching the article and basically put their own inadequacies on display for public scrutiny, which many others may not do.
Consider this next time you update your company's Privacy Policy and wonder if it's understandable, to who, can be discovered at all, etc. Do your users understand what of their data you have and how you use it?