AI Notetakers: Risks and Benefits
There was a time when “off the record” meant something. A hallway conversation at a conference, casual chat with a long-time vendor rep, a quick call to brainstorm an idea or talk through a challenge without the formality of documentation or an NDA. Has that time passed though?
I recently received a question from a vendor regarding AI note takers. I decided to post the question on LinkedIn which led to over 120 responses. There was a mix of responses, with the overwhelming suggestion that this is just not ok.
One vendor jumped in with: “I don’t like this and will refuse to do this even if it’s a requirement. This is a total violation of people’s privacy and starts the relationship by losing trust. NO NO NO NO I want to start relationships off by building trust not losing it immediately before I have the chance.”
A veteran CISO stated: “It’s poor etiquette, often not legal, and from my perspective, violates trust. I will not knowingly engage with persons using wearable recording devices of any kind.”
However, there was also the question of whether privacy can be expected anymore, such as this response: “I assume everything is already recorded. We’re in a time of mass surveillance. The lapel device isn’t the issue, consent is.”
Do we need to operate with the presumption that every conversation may be recorded, transcribed, analyzed, stored, and potentially reused, whether intentionally or not? The risk is not rooted in mistrust of individuals. It’s rooted in the tools, platforms, and AI-driven conveniences that now sit invisibly between people.
If you’re a CISO, this shift requires a recalibration of how you think about confidentiality, disclosure, and everyday professional interactions. It goes beyond your own interactions and requires education and awareness across the organization.
The Quiet Normalization of Recording Everything
AI-enabled notetaking, call recording, wearable devices, and “memory” tools are increasingly marketed as productivity enhancers, and in most cases they are. However, at what risk? Many operate by default. Some require minimal disclosure. Others are integrated so seamlessly that users may forget they are active at all.
In isolation, these tools appear harmless and frequently helpful. But taken together, they introduce a reality where:
- Conversations are captured without full awareness of all parties
- Sensitive context is stripped of nuance once transcribed
- Data is stored in locations unknown to one or more participants
- Access controls and retention policies are unclear or opaque
What makes this especially challenging is that nothing malicious needs to occur for risk to materialize. A well-meaning vendor representative using an AI assistant to “take better notes” can inadvertently create a permanent artifact of a conversation that was never intended to live beyond that moment.
Trust Is Not the Issue, Control Is
It’s important to be clear: this is not about distrusting vendors, partners, or colleagues. Most professionals act in good faith. The issue is loss of control.
Once a conversation is recorded:
- Who owns that data?
- Where is it stored?
- How long is it retained?
- Who else can access it?
- Is it used to train AI models?
- Can it be subpoenaed, breached, or repurposed?
In many cases, even the person initiating the recording may not have complete answers. CISOs understand better than most that unknown data flows are risk vectors, regardless of intent.
Informal Conversations Are Often the Most Sensitive
Ironically, the conversations most likely to be recorded casually are often the ones that carry the highest risk.
These include discussions about:
- Security architecture decisions still in progress
- Gaps or challenges not yet remediated
- Strategic priorities and future investments
- Vendor performance concerns
- Lessons learned from incidents or near misses
Often times, these are the topics that people feel comfortable discussing informally with trusted peers or long-standing partners. Yet once captured, these insights can become valuable intelligence, sometimes far beyond their original context.
Regulatory, Legal, and Compliance Implications
From a governance perspective, recorded conversations introduce additional layers of complexity. Depending on jurisdiction and context, organizations may face exposure related to:
- Consent and recording laws
- Data protection and privacy regulations
- Discovery and legal requirements
- Contractual confidentiality obligations
Even when no laws are violated, the existence of recorded material can change legal dynamics in ways leaders may not anticipate. A casual statement made verbally may carry very different weight once documented and timestamped.
As one long-time C-suite executive said: “no, no, NO. What portion of "no" don't people understand? Outside the US has stricter laws than in the US. In the US, some states require two-party consent. If the device picks up background eavesdropping of a 3rd party conversation it may be considered illegal wiretapping or eavesdropping. Recording in a public place where private conversation is not expected you may get lucky and avoid the laws. However, having a discussion at a conference venue versus let’s say a public coffee shop might be the difference in the protection afforded. As a security executive, I would want to know and approve to protect both myself and my company.”
Cultural Shift: From Assumed Privacy to Assumed Exposure
For cybersecurity leaders, the most important change is not techincal, it's cultural. Teams need to internalize a new baseline assumption: If you wouldn’t put it in an email, a ticket, or a document, don’t say it casually, and this will be key moving forward. This does not mean shutting down collaboration or becoming overly guarded. It means understanding that spoken words now have the same persistence and portability as written ones.
6 Steps You Can Take Now
Without mandating rigid rules or creating fear, organizations can take meaningful steps to reduce risk:
- Acknowledge the Reality Explicitly: Many professionals have not fully considered how pervasive recording has become. Leadership acknowledgment legitimizes caution without assigning blame.
- Incorporate Awareness into Security Education: Security training doesn’t need to be alarmist. Practical scenarios, conference conversations, vendor calls, informal check-ins, help teams understand where risk can surface.
- Review Existing Policies Through a New Lens: Many confidentiality and data handling policies were written before AI-enabled recording was ubiquitous. Revisiting them with today’s tools in mind can surface gaps without requiring wholesale rewrites.
- Encourage Thoughtful Disclosure Practices: This is about judgment, not restriction. Teams should feel empowered to pause, redirect, or formalize conversations when topics become sensitive.
- Clarify Expectations in External Engagements: Organizations don’t need to dictate vendor behavior, but setting expectations around confidentiality, disclosure, and recording awareness creates mutual understanding.
- Lead by Example: When executives model careful communication, others follow. Leadership behavior sets the cultural norm far more effectively than policy documents.
Informed and Ready
Cybersecurity leaders are already operating in an environment of constrained resources, escalating threats, and constant scrutiny. Adding unmanaged conversational risk to that landscape is unnecessary, and avoidable. The goal is not paranoia. The goal is resilience.
Where AI quietly listens, remembers, and repurposes, awareness becomes a core security control. Conversations are no longer momentary. They are assets, or liabilities, depending on how intentionally we approach them.
