28 ms·

(IANAL, but) Not accurate in the US. Most states are either one party or two party consent states. One party = you can unilaterally record anything (not sure t

by ethbro 7y ago

(IANAL, but) Not accurate in the US. Most states are either one party or two party consent states. One party = you can unilaterally record anything (not sure this includes things you're not actively involved with, e.g. spying). Two party = you must have consent of everyone in the recording. By a plain reading of two party consent statutes, people are in violation if their home speaker records a guest without obtaining consent. I'm sure Google and Amazon's lawyers would try to weasel out of compliance via claimed anonymization, but that's definitely not the spirit of the law. Old, but thorough: http://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf http://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RE... You're also going to bump up into specific wording on whether a given statute covers only telephone conversations or oral conversations, as most of these are phone wiretap laws that may or may not have been worked ambiguously. Additionally, there are federal statutes that likely also bear.

mgamache 7y ago
My understanding of recording law is that in One Party states you need to be part of the conversation to record it. Speculation: This would mean that the device / owner would be in violation if the owner was not in the room?
- ethbro 7y ago
  Ironically, if the owner were not in the room, I'd expect the device manufacturer would be more directly liable. How can a homeowner be responsible for a device for which they (a) don't control the operation of & (b) don't control the software of? At that point, whether a device captures incidental recording seems entirely under control of the manufacturer.
  - fwip 7y ago
    Sorry for the extreme analogy, but a gun owner is responsible if their nephew accesses their gun when they're not home. It is not farfetched to imagine that, to be in compliance with the law, you would need to unplug your listening devices to avoid them accidentally going off.
    - brlewis 7y ago
      The owner of a listening device might be ignorant of audio being stored and audited by human listeners. It's farfetched to think a gun owner might be ignorant of a gun's dangers because they didn't read the terms of service in detail.
  - iamnotacrook 7y ago
    So I buy one of these things; install it; put it online, but i'm not responsible for it? I don't understand. Would you be happy with that defence from a hotel if your wife stayed in a hotel room and was killed by carbon monoxide from a faulty heater?
mgamache 7y ago
And of course there are children to consider: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/suit-alleges-amazons-alexa-violates-laws-by-recording-childrens-voices-without-consent/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/suit-alleges-am...
testvox 7y ago
Know that even in all party consent states, if you continue talking after being made aware that the conversation is being recorded implies consent. This is why devices like google home are legal, they make a loud warning sound before they begin recording. For example in CA the law states that: > (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished... (b) For the purposes of this section, “person” means an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=632 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
- brlewis 7y ago
  > they make a loud warning sound before they begin recording This contradicts my personal experience last week with a google-controlled music player. Music was the only response to a voice command to play music, and silence was the only response to a voice command to turn it off.

by ethbro 7y ago

mgamache 7y ago

My understanding of recording law is that in One Party states you need to be part of the conversation to record it. Speculation: This would mean that the device / owner would be in violation if the owner was not in the room?

ethbro 7y ago
Ironically, if the owner were not in the room, I'd expect the device manufacturer would be more directly liable. How can a homeowner be responsible for a device for which they (a) don't control the operation of & (b) don't control the software of? At that point, whether a device captures incidental recording seems entirely under control of the manufacturer.
- fwip 7y ago
  Sorry for the extreme analogy, but a gun owner is responsible if their nephew accesses their gun when they're not home. It is not farfetched to imagine that, to be in compliance with the law, you would need to unplug your listening devices to avoid them accidentally going off.
  - brlewis 7y ago
    The owner of a listening device might be ignorant of audio being stored and audited by human listeners. It's farfetched to think a gun owner might be ignorant of a gun's dangers because they didn't read the terms of service in detail.
- iamnotacrook 7y ago
  So I buy one of these things; install it; put it online, but i'm not responsible for it? I don't understand. Would you be happy with that defence from a hotel if your wife stayed in a hotel room and was killed by carbon monoxide from a faulty heater?

mgamache 7y ago

And of course there are children to consider: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/suit-alleges-amazons-alexa-violates-laws-by-recording-childrens-voices-without-consent/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/suit-alleges-am...

testvox 7y ago

Know that even in all party consent states, if you continue talking after being made aware that the conversation is being recorded implies consent. This is why devices like google home are legal, they make a loud warning sound before they begin recording. For example in CA the law states that: > (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished... (b) For the purposes of this section, “person” means an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=632 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

brlewis 7y ago
> they make a loud warning sound before they begin recording This contradicts my personal experience last week with a google-controlled music player. Music was the only response to a voice command to play music, and silence was the only response to a voice command to turn it off.