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

91–100 of 291 posts

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

#91

Post by jauntywundrkind »

bb88 wrote: post #52
pessimizer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

It's true, and I agree with how you weigh these crimes by parties against the public & discourse.

But. Different parties each have their own interest & angles for why they un-rightfully squeeze liberties in different ways. It's fine to point out flaws, to identify greater evils. But we have to resist what-about-ism as a complete counter; everyone can be guilty of the same classes of errors. It doesn't win elections, but the moral high ground of acknowledging nuance & complexity & being willing to be vulnerable is, to me, the mark of genuineness that is the highest form of patriotism.

Reality is rarely clean, and that willingness to acknowledge the muddiness of the world & it's many situations is what enables us to iterate & progress.

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

#92

Post by logdap »

darth_avocado wrote: post #83
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.

And this kind of thing, trouble with a boss/landlord/etc, is a lot more likely to personally impact the average person than any sort of PV-related scenario. Single party consent is a clear net positive for most people.

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

#93

Post by noduerme »

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

Who cares who the plaintiff was? If they operate in bad faith, so much the better[0]. I'd be inclined to see this decision as a boon to progressive organizations wanting to expose hypocritical conduct. Again, this applies in places with no expectation of privacy.

On general principle, it seems like a no-brainer. I get being disappointed if your ox is gored, but being recorded by your interlocutor in a public place where anyone else could record shouldn't be a problem for any individual or organization that adheres to its stated principles. I'm more disturbed that this is somehow perceived as an attack against progressive organizations, when frankly it should be celebrated as a powerful tool to expose covert discrimination and other wrongdoing.

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-project-veritas-member-matt...

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

#94

Post by brightlancer »

michaelmrose wrote: post #82
judge2020 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Expectation's got nothing to do with it.

Any country can claim jurisdiction on any action committed anywhere; the question is whether that country can reach you.

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

#95

Post by makeitdouble »

addisonl wrote: post #45
eimrine wrote: post #40

I stopped using smartphones when Android stopped supporting a phone recording software.

Maybe they changed their stance? I found a support article from google on how to record calls: https://support.google.com/phoneapp/answer/9803950 iPhone is (unsurprisingly) more “locked down” as in you can’t record with the default phone app but they don’t block phone recording apps from their app store either which is better than nothing considering the (foolish) stance apple could take here.

> This feature isn't available on Pixel

Of all the device lines that they could have banned from this feature ....

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

#96

Post by BurningFrog »

rootusrootus wrote: post #89
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see anything implying neutrality in that text.

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

#97

Post by sourcegrift »

rootusrootus wrote: post #89
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know all news channels cut out the part where Trump followed Abe in feeding the fish, so as to mock Trump? And I'll be flagged again

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

#98

Post by waffle_ss »

wnevets wrote: post #88
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No they'll instead ruin your life for posting a Trump wrestling GIF on Reddit

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

#99

Post by seanhunter »

swayson wrote: post #72

Anyone know what the laws around this is in South Africa?

Looks like it's nuanced but the same set of considerations apply (ie whether people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given context and whether or not they have consented). https://uni24.co.za/are-you-allowed-to-record-someone-in-sou...

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

#100

Post by pyuser583 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #82
judge2020 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would an American talking on an American phone service lack protection provided by American laws?
Post reply on HN