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

231–240 of 291 posts

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

#231

Post by appletrotter »

cubefox wrote: post #158
simiones wrote: post #154

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…

I think it’s kind of in poor taste to jump to a nazi comparison here so quickly.

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

#232

Post by steamer25 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #96
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.

I don't see anything implying neutrality in that text.

Their expectation of neutrality probably stems from the word 'journalism'. I'd say that the expectation of neutral journalism is a (commonish) fallacy, though.

Unbiased, neutral, objective reporting is a great ideal and aspiration for those who fancy themselves journalists. But that doesn't mean it could be 100% achieved. The very nature of reporting means that you need to make editorial decisions about which stories are newsworthy and salient. We probably don't need to know how many hairs were on the Senator's head as he gave his speech. Different people will make different choices about which details are important and those choices will inevitably be colored/informed by the things that're important to those making the editorial choices.

As much as it'd be nice if we could somehow fix it, bias affects everything. Even institutions which we hold sacred like education, jurisprudence, science, statesmanship, etc. are all irrevocably tainted. What's especially interesting about the media, though, is that it comes with a megaphone.

The medium is the message: "The most trusted name in news", "Fair and Balanced". Where the self-promotion is repeated often enough, it's particularly easy for people start believing it--at least about their favored side. Every other outlet produces nothing but salacious, yellow, muckraking tabloid-esque sound-bites but 'journalism' is as pure as the wind-driven snow.

You can't apply the term 'journalism' to a real, human organization unless it's one of the organizations that I like. Otherwise, you're implying neutrality where none exists.

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

#233

Post by wang_li »

addisonl wrote: post #39
thatguy0900 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the case in some us states as well

Surprisingly, most states (39) are one party consent: https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/one-party-consent-state...

In the US the only function of two party consent laws is to allow people to lie about what they said. Even in two party consent states you can still report what someone said to you. And they can lie and say no I never said that. Without recordings it's just one person's word against the other's.

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

#234

Post by wnevets »

mcpackieh wrote: post #109
wnevets wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is quite the non sequitur. No one's life was ruined and investigative journalism wasn't involved.

It was investigative journalism, if you can call it journalism. CNN investigated the origin of the gif, and used biographical details revealed on reddit to determine the gif creators real name / identity. They didn't ruin his life, but threatened to go public with information which probably would have. Anyway, here's the article in question: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...

> if you can call it journalism.

I don't, hence my comment.

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

#235

Post by 95014_refugee »

LocalH wrote: post #227
sschueller wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shou…

Your baby/bathwater filter seems to be on the fritz.

If, as in the common case, a police officer is performing their duty correctly, why should they as a private individual be singled out, maligned, their personal safety be threatened, etc. etc?

If you’re coming at this from e.g. the US perspective where the situation with police is a very stylized us/them, this may feel odd.

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

#236

Post by remix2000 »

JustBreath wrote: post #216
wongarsu wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess that explains the distinct lack of public freakout videos from Europe.

I think that's more related to the fact that most Europeans normally speak languages other than English.

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

#237

Post by michaelmrose »

pyuser583 wrote: post #100
michaelmrose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a Canadian talking on his Canadian phone service expect to be bound by the laws of a foreign country because a call terminated there.

Why would an American talking on an American phone service lack protection provided by American laws?

Legally because the recording takes place entirely in Canada. For practical purposes getting something prosecuted across national borders is incredibly complicated even for serious crimes that are crimes in both nations with clear jurisdiction and basically impossible beyond that scope.

In fact only an American would have the temerity to imagine that their laws might apply to someone in another country merely by calling them on the phone.

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

#238

Post by evandale »

silisili wrote: post #223
evandale wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's been a miscommunication. I want you to provide the timestamp that makes you think the Apollo dev was serious.

I've listened to the recording and it's obvious he was joking every time he asked for the $10 million. I want to know why you think otherwise and am asking for the exact timestamp where you believe his threat could be interpreted as serious. I honestly have no idea which part of the recording could be interpreted as a serious threat and I don't believe such a timestamp exists, hence my inability to find it.

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

#239

Post by [deleted] »

nunuvit wrote: post #222
evandale wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

nunuvit wrote: post #222
evandale wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN