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

191–200 of 291 posts

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

#191

Post by hug »

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #176
hug wrote: 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…

To provide some clarity on my own position, I understand and echo your desire to have a society in which our quiet moments are not intruded upon. I am not arguing that the expectation that you not be monitored is unreasonable. What I am saying is that these feelings do not line up in a tidy way with the words “private” and “public”.

In all versions of modern English that I’m aware of, “public” is an antonym of “private”. In all conversations around this topic, they are often treated as though they are not. There’s an intuition gap that you rely on your conversational partner to cross. What you do is say “I have a right to privacy, and by privacy I do not mean literally private, I mean incidentally non-public, due to circumstance”, only not in so many words. It’s the way I talk about it as well, because there’s no well understood and unambiguous way to describe what I just called “incidentally non-public”.

Assuming, of course, that you accept that public and private are antonyms, you can demonstrate this intuition gap by instead of talking about public and private, using another pair of antonyms and talking about up and down, and instead ask the question: Does everyone have the right to be up while down?

That’s obviously a terrible and nonsensical question, but I feel it is exactly what some people read when they encounter someone’s desire for privacy in public. How can you be private in public? How can you be up while down?

This isn’t sophistry or maliciousness: it’s a real way that real people interpret the conversation. Failure to recognise the intuition gap is what leads to a failure to understand the other person you’re talking to.

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

#192

Post by bleepblop »

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's actually not difficult to patch a recorder into your phone's output.

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

#193

Post by Laaas »

nunuvit wrote: post #189
sourcegrift wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that neutrality isn't a given and shouldn't be assumed for any media organisation.

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

#194

Post by evandale »

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.

The dev was obviously joking. What part of the recording suggests he wasn't? Exact timestamp please because I want to go back and listen to the context around it on my own rather than relying on your self selected soundbites/quotes.

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

#195

Post by sclarisse »

criley2 wrote: post #186
aapl88889 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Naah, we’ve got the more militant types in a few spots, most notably Seattle. They’re not just figments of the Fox News imagination. To some extent they’re even an inspiration for the right wing militants.

Substantially fewer guns though, gotta be fair.

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

#196

Post by Tostino »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #184
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 how does this square with police not letting people film them?

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over this Taylor Swift song I've got blasting...

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

#197

Post by rubyn00bie »

aapl88889 wrote: post #169
criley2 wrote: post #165

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?

You absolutely have no idea what you’re talking about. You’ve likely never interacted with any antifascists and are only regurgitating what you are fed on the news.

It’s really sad so many people bought this crap narrative delivered by our corporate overlords.

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

#198

Post by moffkalast »

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.

At this point I'm really wondering why anyone still uses iOS given the ever increasing list of things it can't do for completely arbitrary reasons.

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

#199

Post by bluGill »

xoa wrote: post #171
apple4ever wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Courts below a circuit also pay attention to other circuits. If there is no ruling in their circuit a judge will cite the other circuit(s) in their ruling. (they can go either way, but they make it clear they considered it and why they think the other circuits are right/wrong) Rarely a judge will cite a different circuit and go against their own circuit, but this is very rare (either the judge will point out substantial differences from the case the circuit ruled on and those differences mean the ruling shouldn't apply - this is likely to be appealed and if the higher court remains firm it is a black mark on the lower judge; or the judge will point out the law changed and so the ruling isn't valid anymore unless the higher court rules it unconstitutional which of course then lower judge cannot do)

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

#200

Post by hospitalJail »

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 didn't know this was true until a neckbeard got some closeups of a yoga girl doing yoga in a public area. He wasn't hiding it either, he was outright vocal about what he was doing.

Beta AF, but it was interesting to think that if recording in a public park was legal, what else is legal.

Post reply on HN