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

141–150 of 291 posts

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

#141

Post by hnick »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #20
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That already exists - it’s called a video camera on almost every public area. Recording in public areas, unless the owner prohibits it, is almost always legal. This primarily concerned individuals. Two people couldn’t meet and secretly record a conversation with the other without consent. Recording a private conversation you are personally involved in, without notification, is legal in almost all states.

You're conflating concerns. Random site, but from the section Is it legal to Record Audio on Security Cameras : > In most cases, it is not legal to record audio on security cameras unless all parties are aware that you may be recording audio. https://www.upcounsel.com/audio-surveillance-laws-by-state Notably most video cameras don't include audio. Because it's a legal liability & it's simply easier to prove your came…

> Notably most video cameras don't include audio.

This is somewhat off topic but does any of this apply to sign language? Is there a lesser expectation of privacy since "anyone" can see it, so it's treated like a video recording? Is there any conflict with disability laws?

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

#142

Post by apple4ever »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #123
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?

Yes that is correct. Decisions of federal appeal courts only apply in their circuit, not the entire country.

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

#143

Post by silisili »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #104
bob-09 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

Did you listen to the call?

A) it wasn't Huffman

B) the dev absolutely was trying to get money out of them. You can't make a demand, then say 'uh, im kinda kidding' repeatedly. If someone held a gun to your head and asked for your wallet multiple times, each time saying they were kinda joking, what would you do?

That said, Huffman et al absolutely shouldn't have aired dirty laundry.

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

#144

Post by didntcheck »

silisili wrote: post #143
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…

Did you listen to the call? A) it wasn't Huffman B) the dev absolutely was trying to get money out of them. You can't make a demand, then say 'uh, im kinda kidding' repeatedly. If someone held a gun to your head and asked for your wallet multiple times, each time saying they were kinda joking, what would you do? That said, Huffman et al absolutely shouldn't have aired dirty laundry.

I did listen to it. The dev was calling the Reddit rep's bluff, effectively saying "if Apollo is really costing you so much money, why not just buy it for $cost/2?". He wasn't asking for personal hush money. He clarified this on the call and the rep understood and apologised for misunderstanding. Then Huffman went and publicly claimed the misunderstood version of events

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

#145

Post by netheril96 »

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.

Do you use Android phone? Since iOS doesn't allow phone call recording without jailbreak.

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

#146

Post by didntcheck »

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.

I'd be interested to see how a court interprets that given technology that allows discreet remote recording. E.g. you might have to reasonably expect that the guy next to you on the bus could be wearing a wire, but what if someone has a powerful enough microphone that they can record quiet conversations at similar distances to a telephoto lens? I'm unsure what the current actual availability of such technology is, but I'm suggesting it for the sake of argument

Or what if you've hidden a microphone on a secluded bench, and record a conversation where the subjects reasonably believe there is no one around for 20 metres? Consider that businesses put up "you're on CCTV" signs for a reason. A lot of the reason is deterrence, but depending on the jurisdiction it's sometimes considered a legal necessity (or at least prudent) to make the subject aware of the recording, even in a private space

A relevant event for reading is the "People Staring At Computers" controversy (TL;DR: bugging the cameras on display Macs in an Apple Store) https://www.wired.com/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/

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

#147

Post by lotsofpulp »

HWR_14 wrote: post #139
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.

Based on the page 5 and 6 description of Oregon statute 165.540(1)(c), loteck’s conclusion seems correct to me. Page 43 is the conclusion where the statute is reversed and remanded.

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

#148

Post by laserdancepony »

noduerme wrote: post #136
rootusrootus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arres…

[flagged]

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

#149

Post by jimmydorry »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #137
newaccount74 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He may have originally been misinformed, but instead of apologising, he doubled down and said the call was leaked (in his AMA). Then went right back to repeating the lies in interviews.

From his AMA: >His “joke” is the least of our issues. His behavior and communications with us has been all over the place—saying one thing to us while saying something completely different externally; recording and leaking a private phone call—to the point where I don’t know how we could do business with him.

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

#150

Post by ale42 »

netheril96 wrote: post #145
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.

Do you use Android phone? Since iOS doesn't allow phone call recording without jailbreak.

There are lots of other types of phones besides mobile phones (nowadays, usually implying VoIP somewhere in most places, but some countries still have analog landlines, too). Assuming that all phone calls are either made with Android or iOS is reductive to say the least...
Post reply on HN