The Hidden Cost of Convenience – Are Cloud-Stored Transcripts Training AI Without Your Consent?

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court Reporting, Judicial Ethics Watch, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the legal community—particularly among court reporters—few topics ignite debate like the accelerating rise of automated speech-to-text. The fear is not abstract: AI systems require vast amounts of synchronized audio and text to improve accuracy, and legal transcripts are among the most pristine datasets on Earth. Verbatim, time-stamped, speaker-attributed records of human speech? That’s a goldmine for any machine-learning engineer.

Recently, a discussion surfaced online that captures a growing tension within our profession:

What happens when the tools we use to store our transcripts—the cloud platforms, the backend servers, the third-party integrators—are quietly using or selling that data to train their AI systems?

And more importantly: Do we, as the creators of that data, have any say in the matter?

The debate is not hypothetical. It cuts directly to the heart of ethics, ownership, privacy, and the future of stenographic work.

The Myth of “Our Data Doesn’t Matter”

The conversation often begins with a dismissive shrug: “AI is going to improve anyway. Our transcripts are such a tiny drop in the bucket—it won’t make a difference.”

That sentiment recently appeared in a thread discussing whether cloud-stored transcripts may be repurposed for AI training. The argument goes like this:

  1. There are already massive datasets for developing speech-to-text.
  2. Our legal transcripts are minuscule in comparison.
  3. Therefore, removing our data from cloud storage won’t slow AI development.
  4. So it doesn’t matter if the cloud vendor uses it for training.

This line of reasoning feels comforting, but it collapses under scrutiny—legally, ethically, and technologically.

**Because the issue isn’t whether your data makes a difference.

The issue is whether you consented to its use.**

In every other regulated profession—medicine, law, finance, psychology—unauthorized secondary use of sensitive work product is a bright red line. Even if a physician’s notes were “just a tiny dataset,” they still cannot be repurposed without explicit consent. Even if a law firm’s documents were “a small percentage of all documents online,” the cloud provider cannot mine them for training its contract-analysis AI.

Scale is irrelevant. Consent is everything.

Why Legal Transcripts Are Exceptionally Valuable

To understand why this matters, consider what makes legal transcripts uniquely powerful for machine-learning engineers:

  • Perfectly cleaned text, without filler words or inaccuracies
  • Human-verified punctuation
  • Multiple speakers with natural interruption patterns
  • Technical, medical, and legal terminology
  • Synchronized timestamps that map text to audio
  • High-quality audio sources (especially realtime feeds)

This is the exact dataset that most ASR companies don’t have and are desperate to obtain.

Engineers call it parallel data, or a “gold standard corpus.”

It’s the single most valuable ingredient in the recipe for training (or fine-tuning) speech-to-text models. And the cleaner the data, the faster the model improves.

Your transcripts aren’t just a drop in the bucket—they’re a drop of pure distilled perfection in a bucket full of noise.

Cloud Contracts and the Problem of Hidden Permissions

Now comes the uncomfortable part:
Most court reporters have never read the Terms of Service for the cloud tools they use.

And inside many of those agreements are clauses like:

  • “You grant us a nonexclusive license to use, host, reproduce, modify, and create derivative works…”
  • “We may use customer data to improve our services…”
  • “We may use aggregated and anonymized data for research, development, and machine learning purposes…”

To the everyday user, these statements feel harmless.
To the data-privacy lawyer, they read like a neon sign flashing: “Your transcripts may be used to train AI.”

And that brings us to the heart of the debate.

Is It Really ‘Okay’ If Your Cloud Storage Sells or Uses Your Data?

A powerful question was asked in the discussion:

“So you’re saying that if you knew your cloud storage provider was using or selling your synced transcripts and audio to train their AI—without your permission—that’s okay?”

This is where the argument collapses entirely.

Because no, of course it wouldn’t be okay.

Even reporters who believe AI is inevitable would never willingly hand over:

  • deposition transcripts containing protected testimony,
  • criminal trial records,
  • confidential settlement negotiations,
  • privileged attorney-client communications,
  • proprietary business information, or
  • medical data covered by HIPAA

to a cloud vendor for model training.

Even if AI is unstoppable, even if technological advancement marches on, the ethical obligation to safeguard privileged material does not evaporate.

This is not about “stopping AI.”
It is about protecting the integrity of the legal record.

“It Won’t Affect AI Development” Misses the Point Entirely

Some argue that deleting transcripts from the cloud wouldn’t slow ASR development anyway.

That may be true, but it’s also irrelevant.

You wouldn’t hand your bank login to a stranger just because cybercrime “will happen anyway.”
You wouldn’t let a random company listen to your therapy sessions just because AI “can learn from other sources.”
You wouldn’t allow a cloud vendor to scan attorney-client emails just because “there are billions of other emails online.”

The principle is simple:

**The value of your data does not determine the legitimacy of someone else taking it.

Consent does.**

Court reporters create proprietary intellectual property.
Attorneys depend on reporter confidentiality.
Judges expect professional ethical safeguards.
Litigants trust that their most sensitive information will not become training fodder for private AI models.

Whether or not AI is “unstoppable” has nothing to do with any of that.

The Real Issue – We Don’t Know What Vendors Are Doing

The danger isn’t just unethical behavior. It is opacity.

Many cloud-based legaltech tools now quietly include:

  • AI “assistants”
  • AI “summaries”
  • AI “transcription enhancements”
  • AI “automated cleanup”

Once AI features are inside the tool, data-usage boundaries blur.
And the average user has no idea where the audio, text, or metadata travels.

Add subcontractors, third-party APIs, analytics layers, and diagnostic logging, and suddenly the chain of custody becomes impossible to trace.

Why This Matters for the Future of Stenography

Court reporters are not trying to “stop technology.”
They are trying to prevent the legal system from accidentally becoming a giant training pipeline for private ASR companies.

The legal field is one of the last bastions of accuracy, confidentiality, and accountability.
If the transcript pool becomes a training reservoir for AI, the consequences include:

  • loss of control over the official record
  • commoditization of stenographic intellectual property
  • increased risk of errors from AI-based transcripts
  • erosion of transcript integrity as an evidentiary safeguard
  • downstream privacy exposure for litigants

Our data is not meaningless.
It is the blueprint for replacing us.

That does not mean we can stop all advancement—but it absolutely means we deserve the right to refuse participation in training the very tools designed to make us obsolete.

The Real Question Isn’t About AI at All

The question hidden inside this entire debate is simple:

Do court reporters have the right to control how their work product is used?

Yes.

Without question.

This is not about being anti-technology.
It’s about:

  • informed consent
  • privacy
  • ethics
  • intellectual property
  • professional boundaries
  • the sanctity of the legal record

Cloud convenience cannot come at the cost of professional integrity.

The Avalanche Is Real—But so is our Responsibility

Technology will keep advancing.
AI will keep learning.
Speech-to-text models will continue to improve, with or without us.

But none of that makes it acceptable for cloud vendors to use or sell synchronized legal transcripts and audio without explicit, affirmative permission.

Convenience is not an excuse.
Inevitability is not consent.
And “everyone else is doing it” is not a defense.

In the end, the issue is not about stopping AI’s progress.
It’s about protecting the legal record from unauthorized exploitation.

Because if we don’t defend the ethics and ownership of our own work—no one else will.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

This article reflects my perspective and analysis as a court reporter and eyewitness. It is not legal advice, nor is it intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney.

This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment