71–80 of 291 posts
Say it was possible to sit in a large public park and record every conversation within it. Would this decision mean that the state would be unable to ban the use of such technology? If so, it strikes me as a dumb decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprisingly, most states (39) are one party consent: https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/one-party-consent-state...
Surprisingly? Why shouldn't you be allowed to record the things you hear?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Strongly disagree. There are so many situations in which abusive people (employers, romantic partners, politicians) need to be caught unaware or they won't be caught at all. 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 yo…
This has got to be the single rosiest description of Project Veritas ever.
Say it was possible to sit in a large public park and record every conversation within it. Would this decision mean that the state would be unable to ban the use of such technology? If so, it strikes me as a dumb decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sure, how else would you stop a violent threat to society? Say, a chap who starts shooting up a mall? Or a foreign invader?
I mean, if you're an unconditional pacifist, who believes that violence should never be used, even in response to violence, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree with it. But it doesn't sound like you are.
> Plaintiff Project Veritas, a non-profit media organization that engages in undercover investigative journalism, states that it documents matters of public concern by making unannounced audiovisual recordings of conversations, often in places open to the public. This has got to be the single rosiest description of Project Veritas ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.