Allow SpinVox to automatically transcribe Friends Only entries

[androshd]

Title
Allow SpinVox to automatically transcribe Friends Only entries

Short, concise description of the ideaI have my minimum journal security level set to Friends Only, and enjoy the convenience of auto-transcription for my shorter voice-post entries. However, it's currently not possible for SpinVox to transcribe these entries unless they are posted

Comments

[foxfirefey]

There's a lot of evidence that Spin Vox uses human translators.

[ruakh]

Link please?

[foxfirefey]

Besides having a patent on such a process, there are also many signs consistent with that theory. (I'm not sure whether that essay was ever completely finished by the author, but even half formed it makes many good points as is.)

[ruakh]

Scary.

[foxfirefey]

I don't think it's *scary*, although I'd rather that SpinVox didn't try to hide it and that it was a bit more disclosed. I really doubt some poor schmuck in a country somewhere being paid a cheap wage really gives a damn about what people say in their entries, other than to laugh about anything particularly lol-worthy with the crew.

[adudeabides]

Actually, all but one patent SpinVox holds clearly describes using human operators to transcribe voice messages (whether for use in MMS/SMS as in your link or for just display on a computer).

Funnily, the one that doesn't relate to transcription using operators describes the visual voicemail that Apple uses with the iPhone. :x

[adudeabides]

Agreed. I think that needs to be fully-disclosed if they're to transcribe protected posts.

[foxfirefey]

Well, SpinVox keeps the actual process under wraps, so it seems to be assumed that it's done by a machine. But having seen the evidence, that's not machine translating on at least some of those posts.

[adudeabides]

Yeah, I hadn't viewed that link until after I posted, but from what I've seen before, it seems there are people involved in transcription. I understand SpinVox keeps their process under wraps, but they can-should disclose it to 6A (and 6A should push to have it disclosed)...otherwise the security of an individual's post(s) are in question -- it defeats the point of the security controls.

If they're not willing to disclose whether or not people are used in their process, I would prefer this suggestion not be implemented, as a matter of principle.