The end of Chatham House rules

In media training we've always cautioned spokespeople-in-training to be aware of what they say in front of a camera or mic. The assumption must always be that it's switched on, it's recording, and you're live to air.

In fact, this advice was the subject of a hilarious episode of the BBC's “Yes, Prime Minister” in the late 1980s.

But here we are in the late 2020s, and this well-worn advice must be put back on the agenda urgently.

Not only does everybody now have a camera and mic in their mobile phone – that's been the case for years – but thanks to AI summaries everybody now has a convenient and legitimate reason to hit ‘record’. After all, AI summaries are so useful.

But the side-effect is that you really must assume every meeting is recorded. There truly, literally, is no such thing as off the record anymore. Every time you speak, you must now assume to be recorded, live streamed, and an AI summary generated.

Every fireside chat, every panel discussion, every town hall meeting.

Chatham House rules are often erroneously cited as being a catch-all confidentiality clause, when it actually means:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."

Chatham House Rule | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank

The identity and affiliation of the speaker is easily ascertained by the AI summary. Unless every participant is asked to lock away their mobile devices before entering the meeting room there is simply no guarantee no one is recording.

It would be nice to think every person you speak to seeks your permission first before recording, as you would have learnt in journalism school decades ago. There are many laws that seek to protect you from unauthorised recordings, but there are lots of grey areas. I've found this article by Baker Street PI provides a good overview.

Have you ever been caught by surprise when a meeting participant circulates an AI summary? Do you always start meetings with a disclaimer?

(For the afficionados, this is how the "Yes, Prime Minister" episode continues).