Live data from Hacker News

Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

documentcloud.org

171–180 of 291 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Though worth noting that different circuit courts absolutely pay attention to each others rulings, even though they're not legally binding precedent. If a clear case and solid ruling happens in one circuit the others may all go on similar lines. If a different federal appeals court comes to a totally different conclusion, that's a "circuit split" and is one of the major points at which SCOTUS becomes very likely to then step in and resolve it for the whole country.

If this ruling gets appealed not impossible SCOTUS would take it anyway, but I'm not enough of a court watcher to have any sense of whether it might be considered ripe or important enough from just this one instance.

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

#172
post #163
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so it’s illegal to film someone on a street in switzerland and post it online?

Sounds reasonable.

I wonder if there are exceptions for photographing police and other government officials? Seems like there should be. And what about the reverse? Are police body cams allowed?

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

#173
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so it’s illegal to film someone on a street in switzerland and post it online?

Yes, you would need to make them unidentifiable by blurring their face, anonymizing their voice and any other feature that may identify them. Wide shots of crowds are generally ok in public, the issue is focusing on specific people. For example someone having a mental breakdown in public. You also can not have door bell or private cameras pointing to public streets/roads. You have to ensure your camera only records y…

So having a dash cam in your car isn’t allowed?

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

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what that means.

A redditor made a gif Trump hitting CNN with a chair in a wrestling ring, or something to that effect. It was subsequently tweeted by Trump. CNN tracked the gif back to the redditor that made the gif and threatened to go public with his identity and reddit comment history if he didn't issue an apology (which he did). I think the lesson is something about picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.

threatening to dox out of indignation. this is extortion, plain n simple.

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

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you would need to make them unidentifiable by blurring their face, anonymizing their voice and any other feature that may identify them. Wide shots of crowds are generally ok in public, the issue is focusing on specific people. For example someone having a mental breakdown in public. You also can not have door bell or private cameras pointing to public streets/roads. You have to ensure your camera only records y…

So having a dash cam in your car isn’t allowed?

At least here in Norway the issue isn't taking the photo or filming, but publishing it in any way.

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

#176
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 violat…

I’ve been sitting here for a while trying to come up with how to eloquently put this in English and I cannot. Maybe English lacks the appropriate terminology to express the difference between privacy and publicity within the expanded scope of current technology. It’s my only language, and I like to think I’m pretty good at it, but I’m absolutely stumped as to how you’d exactly word exactly what you’re not understandi…

The challenge you have is not language related, but rather logic related. The issue our Swiss friend raises is valid, no matter the language.

Do Americans not have an expectation of privacy even when talking in public, based on the expectations of the individuals engaged in speech?

For example, when you are at a restaurant with friends, is there not an expectation of privacy within the context of your conversation with someone? Any reasonable person will have an expectation of privacy that will generally be limited to all those people around your table and with whom you will be making eye contact, as long as you are speaking at a tone that is reasonable for that context. No? Is the speaker going to be speaking so that everyone in the restaurant can understand their speech? No? So it’s not public then, right? Ignoring incidental overhearing, of course.

Inversely, if we consider what the American system clearly considers private, the home and, by extension, the car; if you have ever heard a conversation through thin walls between apartments or maybe a phone conversation on car speaker blasted speakerphone, is that private then? … are Phone conversations then also not private since in most cases the caller will not likely be aware that their direct conversation partner is blasting their conversation to the parking lot on the car’s speaker phone?

These scenarios, among others, beckon a requirement to make privacy expectations approaching unachievable. Is that reasonable? No, of course not.

And that’s before we explore things like focused beam microphones that make all conversations within any line of sight or even just things you whisper into someone’s ear not radically private based on the current American nonsensical definition reasonable and privacy.

The problem in America is not the speech part, but rather that the logic and reason itself has been inverted and perverted by sophists and abusive manipulators over the decades, which have turned everything upside down, including the definitions of “reasonable”, “public”, and “private”, i.e., the core logic of the matter.

None of the founders of America and the writers of the Constitution would recognize any of these current assumptions built into definitive and even the words they wrote, let alone all the illogical and lazy cruft that has been added after the twelfth amendment. They would think we’ve gone insane, because were have our, more accurately, sophist psychological manipulators and abusers have driven us so insane that we engage in the horrid abominations and abuses that are normalized all around us today. It has long been an ever worsening entropy problem.

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, before. Don’t give cops freebies.

Don't talk to a cop without your lawyer present.

Don't keep the recordings on your phone.

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

#180
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two points: 1) Americans place freedom of speech (including photography or recording things) very highly and are willing to suffer some damage in exchange for more freedom. 2) Limits on recording in public would very quickly and very easily be weaponized by police against minorities, leftists, and basically anyone else who resists the creeping tide of ---- well, you know, right wing politics. Saving celebrity's from…

The first page of the summary explains how there are already exceptions for recording police.
Post reply on HN