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

131–140 of 291 posts

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

#131

Post by cubefox »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #42
thatguy0900 wrote: post #33

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…

I assume this allows people to publish seemingly private conversations you had with them. (Both recording and publishing would be illegal in the EU.)

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

#132

Post by cubefox »

dylan604 wrote: post #73
sneak wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly? Why shouldn't you be allowed to record the things you hear?

I interpret the "surprisingly" as shocked that that many have common sense one party consent rules. My skepticism would think idiotic rules to be the majority.

From my (European) perspective this sounds strange. Wouldn't you be worried when e.g. your employer or partner is secretly recording your conversations with them? In Canada it seems to be even legal to publish these conversations without consent, though I don't know about the US.

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

#133

Post by newaccount74 »

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.

I looked it up, Selig said it was an employee [1]:

> As mentioned in the last post, thankfully I recorded the phone call and can show this to be false, to the extent that Reddit even apologized four times for misinterpreting it:

> Reddit: "That's a complete misinterpretation on my end. I apologize. I apologize immediately."

> (Note: as Steve declined to ever talk on a call, the call is with a Reddit representative)

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/14dkqrw/i_want_t...

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

#134

Post by fardo »

DougEiffel wrote: post #67
User23 wrote: post #47

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…

In many cases, the act of recording is itself an abusive action. Privacy is valuable, desirable, and the freedom to converse knowing there isn’t a recording running is itself the freedom to speak without all conversations being subject to chilling effects. Society is not improved by the threat that every ephemeral conversation is potentially being collected for later use, abuse, and scrutiny.

This therefore to me seems like a thinly-veiled variant on “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”. A world of constant recording is not a better one.

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

#135

Post by starkparker »

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.

Oregon, where this is filed, also has one-party consent on phone calls. Considering the plaintiff, this is mostly about hidden cameras and surreptitious recording in person.

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

#136

Post by noduerme »

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.

So? Police departments manipulate video all the time. Does that mean we should be against having cops wearing body cams? Isn't having the public right to document things at least the greater good?

I don't understand what principle you're defending. Everyone is recorded in public all the time; if you want to stop that, it's a whole different set of laws. If the Starbucks CCTV camera can record it, but you can be arrested for recording it, that's a massive infringement on your rights[0]. You're OK with abolishing the right of people to record just because some right wing group splices video to make people look bad?

[0] https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-sheriff-departme...

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

#137

Post by sillysaurusx »

newaccount74 wrote: post #133
sillysaurusx wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I looked it up, Selig said it was an employee [1]: > As mentioned in the last post, thankfully I recorded the phone call and can show this to be false, to the extent that Reddit even apologized four times for misinterpreting it: > Reddit: "That's a complete misinterpretation on my end. I apologize. I apologize immediately." > (Note: as Steve declined to ever talk on a call, the call is with a Reddit representative) […

I just want to thank you for leaving your comment. It’s a rare experience to have my opinion shifted so dramatically due to a crucial missing piece of info. People will say that Steve is still at fault — and he is — but intent was the crucial part of it for me. Being foolish is infinitely better than being evil, and I just couldn’t see how Steve making up a lie was anything but evil.

He didn’t lie. He was misinformed.

Steve is still making questionable choices, but thank god he’s not who I thought he was. I was about to give up on pg’s original vision of YC and conclude that it must’ve all been a grift, just like the peanut gallery has been saying all along.

Really. Thanks. Have a wonderful week, wherever you are.

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

#138

Post by coldtea »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #111
pvarangot wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California you can record without consent if you have reasons to suspect a crime is going to be committed. It's not the most straightforward thing to get away with and you should work with a lawyer before you do it to be sure it will be accepted as evidence, but you can totally do it.

before you do it* *before you REVEAL that you did it

There's always the risk of being caught while doing it, or to be exposed that you've done it before the time that you intend to "reveal" it.

So it's better to talk with a laywer and get informed of your options and the risks, and how to go about it, before you do it, not merely before you reveal you did it.

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

#139

Post by HWR_14 »

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…

I did not see such a limitation in the ruling (although I admit to just scanning it). Instead the ruling seemed to focus on the distinction between the permissibility of recording police officers versus other government officials.

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

#140

Post by InCityDreams »

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?

Things get complicated once international, and state, borders are crossed.
Post reply on HN