Artificial intelligence transcription and note-taking tools are becoming increasingly common in the workplace. That is hardly surprising. They are efficient, practical and can significantly reduce the administrative burden of meetings. Used well, they are helpful. Used carelessly, they can turn a routine meeting into a data protection and employment law headache.
The problem is simple. AI tools are not (yet) good at recognising when a meeting has moved from ordinary business into highly sensitive territory. A well-known example in 2024, when Alex Bilzerian posted on social media that following a Zoom meeting with a venture capital firm he received an Otter AI email containing the transcript of the meeting which contained hours of the firm’s private conversations after he had left the call. What made that example so striking was not the use of AI itself, but the apparent lack of awareness that the transcription process was still recording and circulating material beyond the intended discussion.
We have come a long way since then and awareness of AI tools has improved considerably, though the underlying risk has not disappeared. The issue is not that these tools exist. The issue is that they are often introduced without a full understanding of how they actually work, inadequate training and a lack of policy on their permitted use.
That is where risk begins to creep up. If users do not fully understand when recording is taking place, where meeting records are being stored, who can access them, and how long they will remain available, a simple convenience can quickly become a serious problem.
In an employment context, that risk can be particularly severe. Meetings concerning grievances, disciplinary matters, redundancies, performance concerns or employee health may involve highly confidential and sensitive personal data. If a transcript of such a discussion is automatically saved somewhere accessible to a wider audience than intended, you can imagine the consequences. Such evidence would usually be admissible in an employment tribunal and when it comes to discrimination or detriment whistleblowing claims, individuals can also become personally liable.
The important point is that this is often an entirely avoidable problem. The danger lies not in the AI tool itself, but in a lack of understanding about its default behaviour. In other words, the real issue is not innovation but implementation.
Employers should therefore resist the temptation to treat AI transcription tools as plug-and-play admin solutions. Before using them, organisations should ask some basic but essential questions. Is the meeting suitable for transcription at all? If so, is everyone involved aware from the outset that the meeting is going to be transcribed? Where will the transcript be stored? Who will be able to access it? Is access restricted on a genuine need-to-know basis? Will the transcript be retained automatically and, if so, for how long?
A little care at the outset, particularly in understanding how the technology works in practice, meaningful staff training and a robust policy can avoid a great deal of trouble later.
If your business is using AI tools but has no policy in place, or your data protection policies are in need of updating, you can get in touch with our Business Service experts today on 01256 844888 or enquiries@lambbrooks.com
