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

121–130 of 291 posts

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

#121

Post by sillysaurusx »

newaccount74 wrote: post #118
sillysaurusx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s such a depressing situation. Steve Huffman got caught red handed making up lies about Apollo’s dev for no reason whatsoever. I wish I was exaggerating. Every time I try to describe the event, it ends up sounding like low quality flamebait. Yet it’s a complete description of what happened. He never acknowledged it, either. It was just evil. Usually there are confounding factors or reasons to be on the founder’s s…

> maybe Huffman literally forgot that he misunderstood the Apollo dev Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the person on the call wasn't Huffman himself. Selig was talking to some Reddit employee, who presumably then told Huffman about the call. It's possible that the employee who talked to Selig didn't 100% accurately describe what was said in the call (because he didn't have a transcript to check what was said), an…

Is this correct?

I thought the call was with Steve himself. If this is true, it changes everything.

Would anyone mind checking? My wife and I have been in the hospital for a month, and it’s 2am here. Their voices and mannerisms sounded similar and I always assumed it was Steve.

If it wasn’t Steve, then I’ll immediately reverse my opinion. The evildoer was the employee.

That’s a rather crucial detail.

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

#122

Post by sillysaurusx »

murphyslab wrote: post #116
mcpackieh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Memory can be a funny thing, people repeat stories to themselves to keep memories fresh, but with each retelling the story can shift. "I thought he threatened me but then he clarified that he didn't" could turn into "He seemed to threaten me, but then chickened out when I confronted him" His memory of admitting he made an error could turn into a memory of still feeling threatened but trying to let the Apollo dev save…

> All this is to say that Steve Huffman might not be deliberately lying in this instance. Huffman has had 26+ days to correct the record. He has done nothing to that end. He made a "potentially career-ending" allegation, which hurt the reputation of the developer of Apollo, Christian Selig. June 8th: Selig released his side of the story, along with messages which were sent to him from a Reddit employee as well as fro…

This is an excellent comment — thank you for getting these sources together. I’ve favorited it in case I have to explain the situation to someone again.

But! There’s suddenly a ray of hope. See the comment upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36612285

Do you happen to know whether the call was with Steve himself, or some other Reddit employee? If it wasn’t Steve, then this whole thing was a giant miscommunication, which I’ve always suspected from the beginning.

Boy it’s nice to feel hopeful about this for once. I really hope it wasn’t Steve.

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

#123

Post by lotsofpulp »

loteck wrote: post #58

Very 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/2…

Since this ruling came from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, wouldn’t this ruling only affect Alaska, Montana, and Oregon from the above 5 states?

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

#124

Post by zarzavat »

aidenn0 wrote: post #110
michaelmrose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If a Canadian, connecting to his Canadian ISP hacks into a computer in the US, if they aren't extradited, I think they should be cautious about traveling to the US. The law exists to protect the person being recorded, so if the person being recorded is somewhere where the law is in effect, then it can be applied. There is case-law supporting something similar within the US at least: if a person in e.g. California (wh…

I don’t think recording and hacking are equivalent.

Recording is a passive act that entirely takes place entirely within the territory of the person doing the recording.

Whereas hacking involves accessing a computer system that is in a different jurisdiction, which necessarily involves actively communicating with it and sending it commands.

Recording a call is more like listening to a radio station. Countries may make it illegal to listen to certain communications, but as soon as those radio waves leave that jurisdiction then they are fair game for anyone who wants to listen to them.

Pretty much everybody should be cautious about entering the US!

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

#125

Post by calf »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #122
murphyslab wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All this is to say that Steve Huffman might not be deliberately lying in this instance. Huffman has had 26+ days to correct the record. He has done nothing to that end. He made a "potentially career-ending" allegation, which hurt the reputation of the developer of Apollo, Christian Selig. June 8th: Selig released his side of the story, along with messages which were sent to him from a Reddit employee as well as fro…

This is an excellent comment — thank you for getting these sources together. I’ve favorited it in case I have to explain the situation to someone again. But! There’s suddenly a ray of hope. See the comment upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36612285 Do you happen to know whether the call was with Steve himself, or some other Reddit employee? If it wasn’t Steve, then this whole thing was a giant miscommuni…

I read it was another employee, so maybe their impression got miscommunicated and the CEO assumed the worst - except without any evidence. Which is still bad behavior given that he hasn't addressed the recording evidence publicly. IIRC he Kafkaesquely accused the very act of recording as evidence of aggression/blackmailing, which is just totally out to lunch IMO.

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

#126

Post by rgmerk »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #113
rgmerk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poss…

[flagged]

There are plenty of legal things that people discuss in parks that they nevertheless wouldn't want recorded and disclosed to all and sundry.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #33
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.

This is the case in some us states as well

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by irwiss »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #122
murphyslab wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All this is to say that Steve Huffman might not be deliberately lying in this instance. Huffman has had 26+ days to correct the record. He has done nothing to that end. He made a "potentially career-ending" allegation, which hurt the reputation of the developer of Apollo, Christian Selig. June 8th: Selig released his side of the story, along with messages which were sent to him from a Reddit employee as well as fro…

This is an excellent comment — thank you for getting these sources together. I’ve favorited it in case I have to explain the situation to someone again. But! There’s suddenly a ray of hope. See the comment upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36612285 Do you happen to know whether the call was with Steve himself, or some other Reddit employee? If it wasn’t Steve, then this whole thing was a giant miscommuni…

Steve or not doesn't improve anything about the situation, even worse, since it wouldn't even hurt his ego to apologize on behalf of employee he chose radio silence instead, it just shows the intent is to make third party devs fuck off the platform by whatever means necessary

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

#129

Post by misnome »

pyuser583 wrote: post #100
michaelmrose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To hazard a guess, because they might possess more than a childs’ understanding of jurisdiction.

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

#130

Post by Zaerru »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #121
newaccount74 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe Huffman literally forgot that he misunderstood the Apollo dev Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the person on the call wasn't Huffman himself. Selig was talking to some Reddit employee, who presumably then told Huffman about the call. It's possible that the employee who talked to Selig didn't 100% accurately describe what was said in the call (because he didn't have a transcript to check what was said), an…

Is this correct? I thought the call was with Steve himself. If this is true, it changes everything. Would anyone mind checking? My wife and I have been in the hospital for a month, and it’s 2am here. Their voices and mannerisms sounded similar and I always assumed it was Steve. If it wasn’t Steve, then I’ll immediately reverse my opinion. The evildoer was the employee. That’s a rather crucial detail.

It was a different employee than Steve on the call that apparently perpetuated the misunderstanding despite it being cleared up immediately and the employee apologizing; however, Steve continued to repeat the claim after Apollo Dev had refuted and proved the claim false, which the media (such as The Verge) had picked up.

So though it was not originated from Steve, Steve perpetuated it when he should have known better.

Post reply on HN