61–70 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No, we want the state to allow some types of violence (e.g. boxing matches) but prohibit even the state from other types of violence like torture even from the state.
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.
It was interesting to see this fact crop up with the reddit vs. Appolo debacle.
Does this apply to private citizens or even government officials?
1. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
If so, it strikes me as a dumb decision.
This 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.
Obviously there are lines to be drawn when we are talking about the government recording citizens. Warrants are an important check on power for this. But any individual should be able to record (mostly) anything. At the very least, it can save you money when a customer service rep claims they never said something. At most, it can keep you out of prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the case in some us states as well
And while it might feel counterintuitive how obvious a good idea it is, it becomes a lot more intuitive when you consider the contrary implications. You can not only be a party to something without being able to demonstrate what you observed, but you can be a party to something where any convincing accusation about your own involvement is equally compelling to your own recount by default. Even if you don’t realize yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was interesting to see this fact crop up with the reddit vs. Appolo debacle.
How did this apply? I admit I haven't been following the drama closely.