Live data from Hacker News

Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

documentcloud.org

201–210 of 291 posts

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

#201

Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior. Do I really want to record that domestic incident for use in a divorce later? What if it backfires? Should I really record my boss saying that? What if there’s a 20% chance it…

I basically treat all conversations like they are being recorded. Privacy is dead, laws are just bandaids.

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

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are legitimate reasons for having one party consent legal. My experience with employer harassment has been that it’s extremely hard to prove discriminatory behavior without being able to record without consent.

In California you can record without consent if you have reasons to suspect a crime is going to be committed. It's not the most straightforward thing to get away with and you should work with a lawyer before you do it to be sure it will be accepted as evidence, but you can totally do it.

Laws that make something legal or not conditional on a hypothetical that hasn't happened yet are kind of lowsy. It's like the stand your ground one's where you can just say you believed your life was in danger.

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

#203
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…

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

No, they don't, because that would not be a reasonable expectation.

>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

I'm pretty sure the founders of The United States and the writers of the Constitution would understand that speaking at a restaurant (in their day, more likely in a public house) with friends is public.

Ben Franklin was a newspaper-man. You think he didn't deal with things overheard and published? These people were revolutionaries - successful revolutionaries generally know that their acts can be witnessed if not done in private spaces.

>let alone all the illogical and lazy cruft that has been added after the twelfth amendment

Weird cut-off, friend. To me, some of the illogical and lazy cruft was added prior to that in order to justify owning other people.

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

#204

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?

Jein (German word joke that combines Ja & Nein / Yes & No).

The short answer is: they are allowed BUT. There are many privacy rules that prohibit the actual use of these recordings (not limited to publishing but in court as well).

The assumption of privacy is very strong here.

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

#205
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you're saying to me. The state is the only one allowed to cage people

That’s not even true, though. Captains of commercial ships have always had the authority to put people in the brig. And that’s not even including putting Elon and Zuck in a cage together.

Elon/Zuck entering a physical cage with consent and able to leave is not "caging". Like calling waterboarding legal because surfers use a board on water.

Brig detainment is a state sanctioned and regulated method to hand over someone to the state in transit back to authorities. They're not allowed to detain people as punishment

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

#206
post #155
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.

[deleted]

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

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Jein (German word joke that combines Ja & Nein / Yes & No). The short answer is: they are allowed BUT. There are many privacy rules that prohibit the actual use of these recordings (not limited to publishing but in court as well). The assumption of privacy is very strong here.

[deleted]

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

#208
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…

Agreed. I also get flummoxed whenever I try to talk about this stuff.

Further, I've only recently appreciated that our modern folk understanding of right to privacy has eclipsed its twin, the right to personal autonomy.

The development of the doctrine regarding the tort of "invasion of privacy" was largely spurred by the Warren and Brandeis article, "The Right to Privacy". In it, they explain why they wrote the article in its introduction: "Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society". ...

They then clarify their goals: "It is our purpose to consider whether the existing law affords a principle which can properly be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual; and, if it does, what the nature and extent of such protection is".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Sta...

Brandeis & Warren were motivated by the evils of "yellow journalism", the social media of its day.

"The U.S Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans to privacy and personal autonomy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment."

https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-right...

I love the EU's notion of consent wrt privacy (h/t @sschueller). Will definitely learn more about their system. My hunch is consent is akin to respecting another's autonomy.

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

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part?

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.

do you have a source on any of this cutting?

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

#210
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Same applies, you can film the police but you can't post it online as they as individuals have a right to privacy as well. Misconduct is handled by the appropriate authoritative which will view such tapes but not by the Public although such footage will end up in the media with the police officer's identities anonymized.

Police body cams are permitted but the handling of the recordings is very strictly controlled. The same applies to public cameras such at train stations etc. There are clear signs indicating they are present and the footage has strict retention policies. In many cities now it is also illegal for these camera to do any type of face recognition.

In only very extreme situations can the government share footage with the media where a person is identifiable.

Post reply on HN