4 ms·

I was thinking about this law during the recent Planned Parenthood undercover video stuff, as in why does the food industry get more protection than medical cli

by guelo 11y ago

I was thinking about this law during the recent Planned Parenthood undercover video stuff, as in why does the food industry get more protection than medical clinics. But what I still don't understand is how any of these undercover videos are legal under regular wiretapping laws. I always thought you have to get a party's consent to record them.

rqebmm 11y ago
In the US, it depends on the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-p...
- slxh 11y ago
  Does it depend on the state if you only record video (no audi)? I think that laws need updating to include video (at least in those states requiring consent for audio).
ohitsdom 11y ago
> I still don't understand is how any of these undercover videos are legal IANAL but I thought it is legal as long as one of the parties consents to the recording. I could secretly tape a conversation with you without your knowledge since I consent to it. However, the police would need court approval to tape our conversation since neither of us consent.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > IANAL but I thought it is legal as long as one of the parties consents to the recording. Laws on consent for recording vary from state to state, and all-party consent is required in some.
rayiner 11y ago
Because abortion clinics don't create a ton of jobs in rural states with disproportionate electoral representation.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  I'm not expressing an opinion on abortion or agriculture. Let's talk about "disproportionate" representation. Idaho is home to 1.6m people (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2014/tables/NST-EST2014-01.csv http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2014/tables/N...). It has 2 votes in the Senate, like every other state, or 2% of the total, and 2 votes in the House (http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_id http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_id), or 0.46%. According to the Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/popclock/ http://www.census.gov/popclock/) the United States has a population of 321m. Therefore Idaho has 0.498% of the US population. Accordingly, it is underrepresented in the House and, like most states, overrepresented in the Senate. Overall, Idaho has 4 out of 535 votes in the legislature, or 0.748%, meaning that Idahoans have about 1.5 votes per person. That's a very small margin, especially considering both the underrepresentation in the House and the tiny overall representation. Just how disproportionate is this? Well, if you took away just one representative, the state would be underrepresented overall, as well as being grossly underrepresented in the House. Granularity works against us here; there is no way to fairly represent states with moderate populations like Idaho. Perhaps this should be telling us that we really aren't one nation and shouldn't attempt to govern such a large number of diverse people with a single set of laws. Again... regardless of what I personally think about abortion or ag-gag laws.
  - laGrenouille 11y ago
    The issue with your math is that you're incorrectly assuming that a vote in the House is equally powerful to one in the Senate. On the contrary, a seat in the Senate is far more powerful due to procedural differences, significantly longer terms, and the smaller size of the body. When just looking at the representation in the Senate, Idaho has 4% of the votes but only 0.49% of the population... A factor of nearly 10. The make-up of the US government was always intended as a way to balance equal representation by state (Senate) and population (House). The problem is that while the original 13 states were relatively uniform in size we have since created states with vastly different populations (Wyoming is 68x smaller than California!).
    - 11y ago

by guelo 11y ago

rqebmm 11y ago

In the US, it depends on the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-p...

slxh 11y ago
Does it depend on the state if you only record video (no audi)? I think that laws need updating to include video (at least in those states requiring consent for audio).

ohitsdom 11y ago

> I still don't understand is how any of these undercover videos are legal IANAL but I thought it is legal as long as one of the parties consents to the recording. I could secretly tape a conversation with you without your knowledge since I consent to it. However, the police would need court approval to tape our conversation since neither of us consent.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> IANAL but I thought it is legal as long as one of the parties consents to the recording. Laws on consent for recording vary from state to state, and all-party consent is required in some.

rayiner 11y ago

Because abortion clinics don't create a ton of jobs in rural states with disproportionate electoral representation.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
I'm not expressing an opinion on abortion or agriculture. Let's talk about "disproportionate" representation. Idaho is home to 1.6m people (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2014/tables/NST-EST2014-01.csv http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2014/tables/N...). It has 2 votes in the Senate, like every other state, or 2% of the total, and 2 votes in the House (http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_id http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_id), or 0.46%. According to the Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/popclock/ http://www.census.gov/popclock/) the United States has a population of 321m. Therefore Idaho has 0.498% of the US population. Accordingly, it is underrepresented in the House and, like most states, overrepresented in the Senate. Overall, Idaho has 4 out of 535 votes in the legislature, or 0.748%, meaning that Idahoans have about 1.5 votes per person. That's a very small margin, especially considering both the underrepresentation in the House and the tiny overall representation. Just how disproportionate is this? Well, if you took away just one representative, the state would be underrepresented overall, as well as being grossly underrepresented in the House. Granularity works against us here; there is no way to fairly represent states with moderate populations like Idaho. Perhaps this should be telling us that we really aren't one nation and shouldn't attempt to govern such a large number of diverse people with a single set of laws. Again... regardless of what I personally think about abortion or ag-gag laws.
- laGrenouille 11y ago
  The issue with your math is that you're incorrectly assuming that a vote in the House is equally powerful to one in the Senate. On the contrary, a seat in the Senate is far more powerful due to procedural differences, significantly longer terms, and the smaller size of the body. When just looking at the representation in the Senate, Idaho has 4% of the votes but only 0.49% of the population... A factor of nearly 10. The make-up of the US government was always intended as a way to balance equal representation by state (Senate) and population (House). The problem is that while the original 13 states were relatively uniform in size we have since created states with vastly different populations (Wyoming is 68x smaller than California!).
  - 11y ago