Live data from Hacker News

Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

documentcloud.org

181–190 of 291 posts

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

#181

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?

https://eu.cobra.com/blogs/news/are-dash-cams-legal-europe

Not everywhere in europe, simmuliar applies to Doorbell cameras.

https://community.security.eufy.com/t/background-blur-for-th...

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You probably agree with that statement while I have different intuitions.

I most certainly do not. That phrase has nothing to do with this discussion in fact - it applies to cases of making private statements either public or at least known to the state apparatus.

Private recordings of private conversations have no similar issue. In my opinion, recording a conversation you and I have is no different from keeping hold of a letter or an email that you sent me, and it's certainly not something I routinely fear.

And, when I do say things that I fear others may hear, I am not content with the fact that I could sue you for recording that information. I would go to technical lengths to actually try to ensure that you can't record it.

> 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 accept.

The law has almost no power in private settings. Technically, if I bought a music CD from Sony, I am not allowed to play it to you, since that would require performance rights. Does Sony or anyone on the planet expect me to fear legal repercussions for doing so in the privacy of my home? Obviously not. It will only even become a possible legal issue if I start publicizing this in some way.

Similarly, even if it's technically illegal for me to hold recordings of my conversations with friends, it is in practice all but impossible for me to be prosecuted about it unless and until I publish them. Even if you suspected I did record our conversations, you would need significant proof of that before convincing a judge to issue a search warrant to try to prove I did. If I am simply keeping these for my own purposes and not sharing with others, you will never have such proof. So, even if it were deeply illegal, I would have very little reason to fear it in practice.

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

#183
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

Wait, why are you drawing the line at the 12th amendment and not the 16th?

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

#184
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 how does this square with police not letting people film them?

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

#185

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.

You know all news channels cut out the part where Trump followed Abe in feeding the fish, so as to mock Trump? And I'll be flagged again

[deleted]

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

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you seen videos of bystanders trying to record militant leftist groups like Antifa?

Is that a thing in your country? In America, there are no "militant leftist groups" and all of the armed "militia" "insurrectionist" militant groups are right-wing.

All of the so-called leftists (we have basically zero support for actual leftism) here are just garden variety rioting young adults who dgaf about politics.

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

#187
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…

I mean he's got a track record of silly and petty behavior https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/23/13739026/reddit-ceo-stev...

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

#188
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…

When you are in a physical space, you can look around you and somewhat reliably observe who can see you, hear you, and observe your actions. You've always then had the choice to base your actions and your speech on who will observe them, with the further knowledge that they might go on to share this with others.

The difference isn't that what you do now can be shared. It's the ease of sharing and the fidelity with which it can be shared.

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

#189

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.

You know all news channels cut out the part where Trump followed Abe in feeding the fish, so as to mock Trump? And I'll be flagged again

Mocking a politician is protected political speech. Complaining that the politician you support has been mocked violates the no-politics rule here. Your understanding of what's allowed is completely backwards.

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

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those exceptions won't stop police from thinking you can't record them and using that as a reason to bust your phone followed by busting your lip. Him and his 5 buddies will go on to say that you provoked them and you'll never see justice.

In general, North American police are ignorant bullies who couldn't hack it through high school or college. Their maturity level is stuck in the past as well, usually never maturing past a 12th grade level.

Post reply on HN