Does this apply to private citizens or even government officials?
Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
51–60 of 291 posts
Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
#52Earlier 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…
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…
[flagged]
Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
#53In 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
In most of the states
Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
#54Earlier 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…
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…
There's definitely a lot of truth here & valuable perspective.
Given what a sensationalistic heavily spun story the other side of the media was rolling with, it is a bit hard to imagine who is going to step up & grab the third rail to make a case here. The whole story starts & ends with selectively chosen soundbites being used to wreck & ruin a name, and signing up to be the next target in this kind of a sniper war is terrifying; even if you can form ranks it's unclear that your constituents won't see only the worst-most spun forms of your defense. It's a problem with democracy in general that nuance & perspective don't convey nearly as well, are much harder cases to build than attention grabbing soundbites.
I can definitely appreciate the value of 1 part federal consent laws, as enabling folks to help bring to light the bad in this world. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant & all that. That this was such murky shit doesn't really change that basis. Still, it's quite disappointing to see what seems, to me, like such an off-base & illegitimate Federal ruling used to so broadly undermine State legislature. Using the fact that this law allowed recording of the police & felonies endangering human life as the sole basis - because that's discriminatory - to say it's unfair & entirely has to be ended seems absurd.
Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
#55Perhaps I'm misreading this, but this appears only to apply to those recordings done in public.
Exactly, the ruling does not affect phonecalls.
Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
#56I stopped using smartphones when Android stopped supporting a phone recording software.
The samsung phone app does support call recording and does not make any announcement about recording to the other party
Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
#57In 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.
It was interesting to see this fact crop up with the reddit vs. Appolo debacle.
Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
#58Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice
to or obtaining consent from the recording’s subjects
when created in a place where the subjects lack a
reasonable expectation of privacy“ (e.g. when talking in public).
Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/03/2...
Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules
#59This smells like a pickle that SCOTUS will need to address. Just running it through my head and I feel like I could argue it in every direction… and the details of the case here make for some interesting wrinkles and a lot of second order type effects that could occur without some good guidance here.
The simple approach is to default to single party consent but allow explicit nonconsent. In other words nobody can be recorded without their knowledge, but if they’re informed a recording is being made then remaining in the conversation is consent.
That isn’t single party consent it is all party consent. Single party consent is anyone in the conversation may record without telling others about it. Or a third party may record with the approval of any one who is in the conversation.