The new wave of AI gadgets

Apple, Amazon, Meta and startups have released AI-powered, always-listening devices this year. Unlike earlier smart speakers activated by wake words, these devices continuously listen and interpret speech.

What these devices do

Amazon's Bee Frontier and Bee Eclipse record, transcribe and analyze a user's day. Apple Watch Series twelve has Siri Recap, which ambiently takes notes and generates summaries. Meta glasses record video and voice.

A user's perspective

Chris Thomas, forty-three, a Pittsburgh-based business owner, wears Meta camera glasses, a Fieldy pendant and an Amazon Bee wristband. He says not having to remember to remember is fantastic.

“I'm forgetful AF. My life is so crazy that not having to remember to remember is fantastic.”

The bystander problem

A bystander at a local bar noticed Thomas's Meta Glasses and said he did not feel comfortable. Thomas removes the glasses entirely because people do not believe they are off.

“He was like, 'I don't feel comfortable.'”

How the technology differs

These devices continuously listen, interpret speech and extract meaning without retaining audio. This raises a largely untested question about whether that processing itself amounts to unlawful interception.

What experts say

Karen Panetta, dean of graduate education at Tufts School of Engineering, says if you give permission to be recorded, that does not mean everybody around you has given consent.

“If I'm giving permission for myself to be recorded, or for everything I look at to be recorded, that doesn't mean everybody else around you has given that consent.”

How companies respond

Apple says Siri Recap does not store audio, send recordings to servers or involve human review. Amazon says it does not store audio from Bee devices and conversations are processed in a secure environment.

The legal question

Many state wiretap and eavesdropping laws focus on whether a private communication was intercepted or its contents acquired, not whether audio was recorded. This distinction may not resolve the legal question.

Massachusetts law is broad

Massachusetts defines an intercepting device as equipment capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying or recording a communication. Contents include substance and meaning, not just audio files.

Who bears the legal risk

Colin Zick, a privacy attorney at Foley Hoag, says the bigger legal risk may fall on the person wearing the device, not Apple or Amazon. A non-wearer did not agree to the terms.

“A non-wearer did not buy the watch, agree to Apple's terms, or choose to have their conversation summarized in the app.”

New Hampshire's exposure

Daniel Pi, associate professor at University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, says the state's statute covers aural or other acquisition of communication contents. The Watch's features could qualify as interception.

The practical risk

A user in New Hampshire could technically face civil or criminal liability for using the feature during private conversation without everyone's consent. But Pi says practical risk of prosecution is far lower.

The broader surveillance shift

Michael Stokes, former CIA officer and senior vice president at Veilant, says the bigger concern is that people can be surveilled without owning or knowingly interacting with the device collecting information.

“I think the bystander problem is really the concern I have, that you can be surveilled without owning the technology.”

AI makes surveillance cheaper

Stokes says AI rapidly interprets what devices collect and draws meaning from far larger volumes of information. In the past, intelligence collection required thousands of hours. AI increasingly automates that process.

“We no longer have these pockets of small privacy that we thought we did in the past.”

A counter-technology emerges

Aida Baradari, founder of startup Deveillance, created the Spectre I, a hockey puck-shaped gadget that uses AI to scan for nearby devices and sends adversarial signals that scramble speech before microphones process it.

“We need to be able to use technology while not giving up our core values or rights.”