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

151–160 of 291 posts

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

#151

Post by heywhatupboys »

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…

> 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.

this is false?

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

#152

Post by AdamN »

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…

This comment doesn't make any sense. The critique was of the description of Project Veritas, not the facts of the case or anything else.

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

#153

Post by sschueller »

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 don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy".

In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violating their privacy and are required to get consent. This consent can also be revoked at any time later.

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

#154

Post by simiones »

cubefox wrote: post #132
dylan604 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Publishing is a whole other thing, but why should I be worried that someone is recording what I'm saying, in general?

And if I'm discussing sensitive information (say, I'm discussing an extra-marital affair, or illegal conduct), why should I think I can rely on the law to protect me from the recording? Is my marriage less ruined if the recording was illegally made and illegally presented to my spouse?

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

#155

Post by hnbad »

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…

So this basically allows blanket surveillance of anything you do in public to the point that paparazzi or stalkers could just legally chase and livestream you every minute after you exit your home until you enter another private space?

I'll never understand why Americans believe there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. An alleyway is very different from a stage in the town square.

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

#156

Post by alkonaut »

rgmerk wrote: post #86
sneak wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poss…

I think it's an interesting question, but perhaps it's the wrong approach to even try to answer it? Perhaps it's better to consider what happens TO the recording.

Being obviously recorded (paparazzi) is the case when the recording itself feels like it is infringing my privacy. If I don't know, and the recording is piped to /dev/null then I can't really care? But if the recording is kept too long, or published somewhere, then that's when I might care. So perhaps we should focus on what's being done to the recorded material. Compare to how in most legislations (afaik) it's ok for me to snap a picture of someone who happens to be in my view when I snap a picture of the Eiffel Tower. And I can publish that on my blog without permission. BUT if I want to sell it as a stock photo or use it in a commercial then I need explicit consent from the people in the picture. I think this makes perfect sense from a consent perspective.

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

#157

Post by tohnjitor »

RajT88 wrote: post #41
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #8

This notably surround James O'Keefe's Project Veritas recording people, as the plaintiff suing the state. The dissenting opinion here is somewhat long to reposte, but seems worthy, in my view: > Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that because the majority does not dispute that the State has a significant interest in protecting the privacy of Oregonians who engage in conversations without notice that their comments are…

To be honest, I do not see the issues with allowing Veritas to record under existing 1 party consent state laws. Their behavior amounts to various other crimes such as libel, fraud, etc. Use those laws to punish their bad behavior.

Which crimes are they committing specifically?

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

#158

Post by cubefox »

simiones wrote: post #154
cubefox wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Publishing is a whole other thing, but why should I be worried that someone is recording what I'm saying, in general? And if I'm discussing sensitive information (say, I'm discussing an extra-marital affair, or illegal conduct), why should I think I can rely on the law to protect me from the recording? Is my marriage less ruined if the recording was illegally made and illegally presented to my spouse?

> Publishing is a whole other thing, but why should I be worried that someone is recording what I'm saying, in general?

Well, this reminds me of

> You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

The phrase - widely used in discussions of Internet security - is most commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels in 1933. You probably agree with that statement while I have different intuitions.

> why should I think I can rely on the law to protect me from the recording?

Why should you think the law can protect you from anything? Because violating the law comes with a substantial potential cost, which is a risk many actors are not willing to take.

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

AdamN wrote: post #152
noduerme wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This comment doesn't make any sense. The critique was of the description of Project Veritas, not the facts of the case or anything else.

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by rstuart4133 »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #117
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.

Good luck trying to record a phone call on any modern smartphone. They purposely make it nearly impossible, unless you want to use speakerphone and the analog hole.

It must depend on region. In Australia the Google phone app has a [Record] button. My mother could use it. Google documents it here: https://support.google.com/phoneapp/answer/9803950?hl=en

I often use it.

Post reply on HN