4 ms·

This happens to be a good example of how there are so many laws you likely break some all the time. California requires consent from all present who have vibra

by edoo 7y ago

This happens to be a good example of how there are so many laws you likely break some all the time. California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations (but not with your ears and brain storage!). That means if the google phone in your pocket listens to people at a restaurant or your alexa listens to your delivery man for a second you are a criminal under California penal code.

DJHenk 7y ago
In this case it's not the fault of the law though. Everyone with a basic level of intelligence and awareness of cultural norms, i.e. everyone working at Google developing and marketing these kind of products, is aware that this might cause an issue. But blinded by money and optimistic technobabble they do it anyway and make it near impossible or very unpractical for the user to turn it off. I would have no problem with some legal action against those people. Isn't here some law against tricking other people into breaking the law?
- edoo 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure the burden would fall on the end user. They don't have to activate those features in an environment where using them would be against the law. Having them activated at your home and failing to inform visitors would be on the user.
  - pwagland 7y ago
    Although legally you might be right, and I'm _sure_ that this is written somewhere in that 4 pages of small print that you didn't read. In practice, no-one is going to be aware of this, and because the "big tech" company isn't ensuring that all users are aware of the contract that they have entered has been adequately explained to them, they are arguably at fault for not ensuring that proper authorisations have been obtained.
  - peteradio 7y ago
    Who is the end user of that data?
soulofmischief 7y ago
> California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing.
- tobylane 7y ago
  Public interest is a defence for not having obtained permission.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding.
    - vageli 7y ago
      > I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding. Unless the recording was made by police, illegally-obtained evidence is often admissable if presented by non-law-enforcement. > Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
- vageli 7y ago
  > > California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations > One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing. That doesn't stop illegally obtained recordings from being presented as evidence, so long as the recording was not performed by law enforcement, at least in the United States. Sure you might be open to civil liability but that's a different story. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
akiselev 7y ago
I highly doubt many judges in California or the Ninth circuit will look at this situation and blame the user, especially when they aren't the ones with access to the recordings.
gtfratteus 7y ago
California is actively trying to make everything a crime so that they have the power to press criminal charges against anybody they dislike without violating 1A. Unfortunately, there's no Constitutional Amendment prohibiting selective enforcement of the law, otherwise these idiotic laws would have been killed as soon as they were signed.

by edoo 7y ago

DJHenk 7y ago

In this case it's not the fault of the law though. Everyone with a basic level of intelligence and awareness of cultural norms, i.e. everyone working at Google developing and marketing these kind of products, is aware that this might cause an issue. But blinded by money and optimistic technobabble they do it anyway and make it near impossible or very unpractical for the user to turn it off. I would have no problem with some legal action against those people. Isn't here some law against tricking other people into breaking the law?

edoo 7y ago
I'm pretty sure the burden would fall on the end user. They don't have to activate those features in an environment where using them would be against the law. Having them activated at your home and failing to inform visitors would be on the user.
- pwagland 7y ago
  Although legally you might be right, and I'm _sure_ that this is written somewhere in that 4 pages of small print that you didn't read. In practice, no-one is going to be aware of this, and because the "big tech" company isn't ensuring that all users are aware of the contract that they have entered has been adequately explained to them, they are arguably at fault for not ensuring that proper authorisations have been obtained.
- peteradio 7y ago
  Who is the end user of that data?

soulofmischief 7y ago

> California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing.

tobylane 7y ago
Public interest is a defence for not having obtained permission.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding. Unless the recording was made by police, illegally-obtained evidence is often admissable if presented by non-law-enforcement. > Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
vageli 7y ago
> > California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations > One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing. That doesn't stop illegally obtained recordings from being presented as evidence, so long as the recording was not performed by law enforcement, at least in the United States. Sure you might be open to civil liability but that's a different story. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

akiselev 7y ago

I highly doubt many judges in California or the Ninth circuit will look at this situation and blame the user, especially when they aren't the ones with access to the recordings.

gtfratteus 7y ago

California is actively trying to make everything a crime so that they have the power to press criminal charges against anybody they dislike without violating 1A. Unfortunately, there's no Constitutional Amendment prohibiting selective enforcement of the law, otherwise these idiotic laws would have been killed as soon as they were signed.