"but in a number of states they (or anyone acting with their permission) would not be free to record the conversation because of all-party consent laws." I'm a

"but in a number of states they (or anyone acting with their permission) would not be free to record the conversation because of all-party consent laws." I'm against that due to the power dynamics in place. I'd rather anyone be able to record anyone without saying anything. The whole situation, start to finish, will need to be recorded to make sure they're not cherry picking. I've found that lots of arrogant, evil people will be too cocky to realize someone is recording something or even that folks around them are listening. Gives us a way to deal with more of them. I've known quite a few people that protected themselves that way. I haven't seen a strong argument in terms of practical effects for full disclosure of that. If anything, less people in abusive environments would be able to prove abuse since abusers would hide it second they know someone is recording evidence. So, I'm for rolling back those all-party, consent laws into one-party or no consent. At least for dealing with harms to person recording. We could require consent before publishing something if no provable harm was done. "I wonder if that's the kind of model that we need to consider expanding into personal data collection" Interesting. Not sure about that one. I do prefer it for businesses collecting consumer data given they do most of the abuses. They also have most of the power in this space. "reinforcing with separate, affirmative consent requirements for some uses" They'll mostly just click through the dialogs or whatever. It might still be good for few it helps. I don't know. This is a security feature that fails the most unless they already know ahead of time how valuable or important something is. They already have to want to protect whatever it is. Plus, sacrifice whatever product/service is being offered to them, esp free. We could try it to see what happens, though.