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

221–230 of 291 posts

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

#221

Post by sneak »

didntcheck wrote: post #146
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.

I'd be interested to see how a court interprets that given technology that allows discreet remote recording. E.g. you might have to reasonably expect that the guy next to you on the bus could be wearing a wire, but what if someone has a powerful enough microphone that they can record quiet conversations at similar distances to a telephoto lens? I'm unsure what the current actual availability of such technology is, bu…

Federal police in the USA are already doing exactly that:

https://www.wired.com/2012/12/public-bus-audio-surveillance/

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

#222

Post by nunuvit »

evandale wrote: post #190
nunuvit wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 maturin…

Ok, so let's remove the ban and the exceptions and make it legal to record anyone.

Then you record a cop who doesn't want to be recorded. The cop beats you up, breaks your phone, and busts your lip. He and his five buddies say you provoked him, and you never see justice.

Problem solved?

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

#223

Post by silisili »

evandale wrote: post #194
silisili wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a pretty short call, please do! But try to keep an open mind and not take mine or his word for it - it's all out there.

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

#224

Post by randombits0 »

wongarsu wrote: post #164
kmlx wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is the norm in Europe. Filming a crowd is fine, making a picture of the Eiffel tower with people around it is fine, filming a specific person and publishing it without their consent generally isn't. "Generally" because obviously it gets more interesting in the specifics of when it is ok, but those are exceptions similar to how copyright has exceptions.

“THE TOWER ILLUMINATED Controlled use The various illuminations of the Eiffel Tower (golden illumination, twinkling, beacon and events lighting) are protected. The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc.”

https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel...

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

#225

Post by silisili »

didntcheck wrote: post #144
silisili wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did listen to it. The dev was calling the Reddit rep's bluff, effectively saying "if Apollo is really costing you so much money, why not just buy it for $cost/2?". He wasn't asking for personal hush money. He clarified this on the call and the rep understood and apologised for misunderstanding. Then Huffman went and publicly claimed the misunderstood version of events

I do agree that it -wasn't- a direct threat per se, maybe a more implicit one? Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

It sounded to me a lot like 'well, if I'm costing you money, give me money and I'll stop costing you money.'

Quotes my interpretation, not direct quotes.

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

#226

Post by rootusrootus »

stainablesteel wrote: post #209
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.

do you have a source on any of this cutting?

You don't have to look any farther than the wikipedia page about them to get a list of their antics.

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

#227

Post by LocalH »

sschueller wrote: post #210
criddell wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

> you can film the police but you can't post it online as they as individuals have a right to privacy as well

This is perverse. What "privacy right" do police officers have when they are on duty or acting under color of law? I think no public official should have a right to privacy while they are actively performing their duties as public officials (this would not apply to their personal life, which is why there should also be very strict restrictions to ensure that all public work is done in public). I also count police officers in this, since they have extra-legal rights compared to the rest of us, being the very embodiment of the state's "monopoly on violence".

If a police officer is doing something heinous, why should they deserve any privacy at all outside of their personal life, where they in theory don't have the right to use their police powers?

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

#228

Post by mcpackieh »

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.

To be fair, the analog hole is effective and easy to 'exploit'.

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

#229

Post by RajT88 »

tohnjitor wrote: post #157
RajT88 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Read the wiki and tell me in detail how all this is OK.

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

#230

Post by lamontcg »

woodson wrote: post #103
lamontcg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I worry about everyone's ring doorbells spying on all the neighbors.

But that’s not one-party consent. The ring cameras aren’t a party.

Just give the SCOTUS a bit more time.
Post reply on HN