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

81–90 of 291 posts

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

#81

Post by judge2020 »

jtokoph wrote: post #69
bob-09 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did this apply? I admit I haven't been following the drama closely.

The apollo dev is based in Canada and recorded the phone calls with Reddit without them knowing. The Apollo dev released transcripts (and perhaps recordings) of the calls to disprove statements made by Reddit.

Has a lawyer weighed in on if this was actually legal? It’s concerning wiretap laws with participants in two different countries, so the legality might not be just “is it legal under Canada law”

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

#82

Post by michaelmrose »

judge2020 wrote: post #81
jtokoph wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The apollo dev is based in Canada and recorded the phone calls with Reddit without them knowing. The Apollo dev released transcripts (and perhaps recordings) of the calls to disprove statements made by Reddit.

Has a lawyer weighed in on if this was actually legal? It’s concerning wiretap laws with participants in two different countries, so the legality might not be just “is it legal under Canada law”

Why would a Canadian talking on his Canadian phone service expect to be bound by the laws of a foreign country because a call terminated there.

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

#83

Post by darth_avocado »

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.

There are legitimate reasons for having one party consent legal. My experience with employer harassment has been that it’s extremely hard to prove discriminatory behavior without being able to record without consent.

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

#84

Post by wnevets »

SeanLuke wrote: post #75

> 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

[flagged]

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

#85

Post by eyelidlessness »

firstlink wrote: post #68
eyelidlessness wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed, PV targets will now be able to record themselves physically assaulting PV agents!

Thank you for demonstrating my point I guess?

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

#86

Post by rgmerk »

sneak wrote: post #71
rgmerk wrote: post #66

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.

That was already true; you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, and never have. I can legally video and audio record anything I wish in a public park.

As has been pointed out approximately a billion times, technology has made surveillance possible to an extent that was inconceivable back in the founders' time.

Before sound recording technology, if there was no-one else around and had a whispered conversation with another person in a public park, I have a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private.

Fast forward to, say, 1980. While it's technically possible for law enforcement to record that conversation (with a dish microphone or through employing a lip-reader and binoculars) the resources required to do so are such that it's very rarely used.

But what about 2023? Or, better still, 2033? Let's imagine it's technically possible for me to stand in the middle of said park with a recording device and intelligibly record every conversation within a 500-yard radius. Would this be considered acceptable? Should governments have the ability to prohibit or restrict the use of such devices, even in public places?

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

#87

Post by ifyoubuildit »

wnevets wrote: post #84
SeanLuke wrote: post #75

> 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

[flagged]

Which part?

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

#88

Post by wnevets »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #87
wnevets wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Which part?

> a non-profit media organization that engages in undercover investigative journalism

investigative journalism doesn't involve falsely editing video to ruin people's lives

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

#89

Post by rootusrootus »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #87
wnevets wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Which part?

In the sense that it implies neutrality. This group of people is highly partisan and carefully cuts out context from their video recordings in order to slander their targets.

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

#90

Post by labster »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #61
labster wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know what you're saying to me. The state is the only one allowed to cage people

That’s not even true, though. Captains of commercial ships have always had the authority to put people in the brig. And that’s not even including putting Elon and Zuck in a cage together.
Post reply on HN