Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

documentcloud.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 291 posts

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#11

Post by [deleted] »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #9
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #8

This notably surround James O'Keefe's Project Veritas recording people, as the plaintiff suing the state. The dissenting opinion here is somewhat long to reposte, but seems worthy, in my view: > Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that because the majority does not dispute that the State has a significant interest in protecting the privacy of Oregonians who engage in conversations without notice that their comments are…

That already exists - it’s called a video camera on almost every public area. Recording in public areas, unless the owner prohibits it, is almost always legal. This primarily concerned individuals. Two people couldn’t meet and secretly record a conversation with the other without consent. Recording a private conversation you are personally involved in, without notification, is legal in almost all states.

[deleted]

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#12

Post by GloomyBoots »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #9
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #8

This notably surround James O'Keefe's Project Veritas recording people, as the plaintiff suing the state. The dissenting opinion here is somewhat long to reposte, but seems worthy, in my view: > Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that because the majority does not dispute that the State has a significant interest in protecting the privacy of Oregonians who engage in conversations without notice that their comments are…

That already exists - it’s called a video camera on almost every public area. Recording in public areas, unless the owner prohibits it, is almost always legal. This primarily concerned individuals. Two people couldn’t meet and secretly record a conversation with the other without consent. Recording a private conversation you are personally involved in, without notification, is legal in almost all states.

Edit: I misread “legal” as “illegal” in the last sentence.

Aren’t most states single-party consent? I know mine is, for which I’m grateful. I regularly record “private conversations” with state officials after having had incidents with them.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#13

Post by tppiotrowski »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #2

Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior. Do I really want to record that domestic incident for use in a divorce later? What if it backfires? Should I really record my boss saying that? What if there’s a 20% chance it…

Do you want Apple and Google to record and archive your private FaceTime/Hangout/Zoom sessions? With your romantic partners?

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#14

Post by Dalewyn »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #8

This notably surround James O'Keefe's Project Veritas recording people, as the plaintiff suing the state. The dissenting opinion here is somewhat long to reposte, but seems worthy, in my view: > Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that because the majority does not dispute that the State has a significant interest in protecting the privacy of Oregonians who engage in conversations without notice that their comments are…

James O'Keefe was removed from Project Veritas earlier this year.

Make of that what you will, just putting it out there so you and anyone passing by aren't using outdated information.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#15

Post by gjsman-1000 »

GloomyBoots wrote: post #12
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That already exists - it’s called a video camera on almost every public area. Recording in public areas, unless the owner prohibits it, is almost always legal. This primarily concerned individuals. Two people couldn’t meet and secretly record a conversation with the other without consent. Recording a private conversation you are personally involved in, without notification, is legal in almost all states.

Edit: I misread “legal” as “illegal” in the last sentence. Aren’t most states single-party consent? I know mine is, for which I’m grateful. I regularly record “private conversations” with state officials after having had incidents with them.

These are the states generally requiring the consent of all parties:

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.

15 states. Everyone else is single-party consent.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#16

Post by GloomyBoots »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #13
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #2

Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior. Do I really want to record that domestic incident for use in a divorce later? What if it backfires? Should I really record my boss saying that? What if there’s a 20% chance it…

Do you want Apple and Google to record and archive your private FaceTime/Hangout/Zoom sessions? With your romantic partners?

They aren’t a party in those conversations.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#17

Post by gjsman-1000 »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #13
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #2

Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior. Do I really want to record that domestic incident for use in a divorce later? What if it backfires? Should I really record my boss saying that? What if there’s a 20% chance it…

Do you want Apple and Google to record and archive your private FaceTime/Hangout/Zoom sessions? With your romantic partners?

That’s not the situation here. This is about whether I can record my romantic partner when I am in a private conversation with her, not in public, without her consent.

Or, your boss, without him suing you for recording a private comment about making the office whiter.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#18

Post by haroldp »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #15
GloomyBoots wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I misread “legal” as “illegal” in the last sentence. Aren’t most states single-party consent? I know mine is, for which I’m grateful. I regularly record “private conversations” with state officials after having had incidents with them.

These are the states generally requiring the consent of all parties: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. 15 states. Everyone else is single-party consent.

Nevada is a single-party consent state.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#19

Post by wahnfrieden »

vkou wrote: post #7
maxerickson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? What's the difference?

> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? It can, as can literally any law when you're brushing up into the boundaries of a gray area. The principal question is: "Do we want to live in a society where violence is usually allowed?" - Definitely not. "Do we want to live in a society where recording people without their consent is usually a…

[flagged]

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#20

Post by jauntywundrkind »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #9
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #8

This notably surround James O'Keefe's Project Veritas recording people, as the plaintiff suing the state. The dissenting opinion here is somewhat long to reposte, but seems worthy, in my view: > Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that because the majority does not dispute that the State has a significant interest in protecting the privacy of Oregonians who engage in conversations without notice that their comments are…

That already exists - it’s called a video camera on almost every public area. Recording in public areas, unless the owner prohibits it, is almost always legal. This primarily concerned individuals. Two people couldn’t meet and secretly record a conversation with the other without consent. Recording a private conversation you are personally involved in, without notification, is legal in almost all states.

You're conflating concerns. Random site, but from the section Is it legal to Record Audio on Security Cameras:

> In most cases, it is not legal to record audio on security cameras unless all parties are aware that you may be recording audio. https://www.upcounsel.com/audio-surveillance-laws-by-state

Notably most video cameras don't include audio. Because it's a legal liability & it's simply easier to prove your camera cant record audio than to have a feature that's disabled. Audio recording is incredibly un-popular. But yes, still, in quite a number of states it's possible to go around putting audio recordings in public. 0 party consent in public.

But even that's not what Veritas did at all. They went into private offices of other people & secretly recorded conservations. People being asked questions thought they were dealing with crazy people & were afraid for their safety, they have testified. Giles dressed as a prostitute & O'Keefe semi-claimed to be a boyfriend, and walked into offices in 7 states (and DC) and pressured staff into talking about illegal businesses. They did as much as they could to, while secretly recording, get people to say bad things. One person being attacked like swore under oath that they feared for their safety & were scared. One said they thought it was a joke. One of them played along, feeling sorry for Giles who said she was being injured by her pimp, and then called the police because she was propositioned about setting up under-age sex trade operations. This farce brought down one of the biggest international collectivist organization on the planet, by ambushing these people with secret recordings & cherry picking the worst things to hurt them with.

This whole case is about people recording each other in private. That's the whole purpose of this law: to defend against assault by advanced persistent Vertias like aggressor threats (and lower/simpler forms of scummery).

Post reply on HN