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

31–40 of 291 posts

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

#31

Post by loeg »

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.

In Washington you don't need the other parties' consent (in the lay sense of the word) if you announce that you are recording and they continue talking. RCW 9.73.030 (3):

> Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted

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

#32

Post by FlingPoo »

In Canada you can record someone (phone call, in person, etc) if just one party consents to the recording. In other words, if I'm a phone call with someone, even if there are several people on the call, it's NOT illegal for me to record them, as long as I'm a participant in the call. It's called the "one party consent" exception. I have no obligation to ask, or tell the others on the call that I'm recording.

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

#33

Post by thatguy0900 »

FlingPoo wrote: post #32

In Canada you can record someone (phone call, in person, etc) if just one party consents to the recording. In other words, if I'm a phone call with someone, even if there are several people on the call, it's NOT illegal for me to record them, as long as I'm a participant in the call. It's called the "one party consent" exception. I have no obligation to ask, or tell the others on the call that I'm recording.

This is the case in some us states as well

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

#34

Post by jauntywundrkind »

abfan1127 wrote: post #26
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 came…

do you have more info on the Veritas behaviors?

I'd love to have a totally crystal clear source telling how incredibly viciously sadly Vertias ambushed people. I scanned around some, and one Timbah.On.Truth has a >2 hour 2-part series seemingly going through what evidence we have of what really happened. (Apologies, still unvetted, but it's the best tone/balance & most contentful I've seen so far & running out of time to dig for this.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8buQLy1dWD8

But as for how this incident was landed / portrayed, what a spectacle it made at the time: Rachel Maddow's coverage is short & shows how it was bandihooed across Fox News. This was like a major spectacle in right-wing American media for a considerably long time, and it's hard to underemphasize how heavily Fox & others worked with O'Keefe to sell this manufactured story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0B0wxt3XYc

I do want to point out, we never got most of the footage. There are many many hours, perhaps even days of footage & audio O'Keefe & Giles recorded doing this sort of stuff, trying to cause trouble. They spent an enormous amount of time trying to generate soundbytes. Also notably, never once was anyone of any supervisor or leadership position taken by these bits; all the juicy sound-bytes O'Keefe got were from pretty low level employees, of an organization with over 1200 neighborhood chapters in the US.

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

#36

Post by logicchains »

revscat wrote: post #27
wahnfrieden wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Forgive me, but that doesn’t sound precise at all. That sounds like anarcho-capitalist anti-democratic marketing speak.

>anti-democratic

So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? A reminder that Hitler was democratically elected; there's a reason the US is formally a Republic.

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

#37

Post by pessimizer »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #20
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.

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 came…

Veritas wasn't the problem here. The problem here is that Democrats basically accepted the narrative because it was politically convenient at the time, even as everybody knew exactly what had happened. Didn't matter.

While ACORN was a heavily Democratic organization, it wasn't a party front like so many nonprofits have become. Democrats that didn't do anything for people had trouble with ACORN, and they were glad to get rid of them. Democratic congresspeople eventually joined in, and their outlets ran cover for them destroying a grassroots community organization. Definitely one of the largest in the country of that type, if not in the history of the modern US.

Blaming it on O'Keefe is easy. I wish Democrats would stop using their failures as explicit justifications for limitations on civil liberties.

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

#38

Post by luxuryballs »

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…

Yeah I was thinking this kind of ban only passed because too many government officials were being caught saying some shit on tape and once it is illegal to have recorded it then it’s no longer valid evidence.

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

#39

Post by addisonl »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #33
FlingPoo wrote: post #32

In Canada you can record someone (phone call, in person, etc) if just one party consents to the recording. In other words, if I'm a phone call with someone, even if there are several people on the call, it's NOT illegal for me to record them, as long as I'm a participant in the call. It's called the "one party consent" exception. I have no obligation to ask, or tell the others on the call that I'm recording.

This is the case in some us states as well

Surprisingly, most states (39) are one party consent: https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/one-party-consent-state...
Post reply on HN