6 ms·

Just curious because I would like to learn a different perspective, why would it matter? I could see maybe for a trial but here, on the internet, what is the is

Just curious because I would like to learn a different perspective, why would it matter? I could see maybe for a trial but here, on the internet, what is the issue?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Some states are what is known as "all party consent" states, while others are "one party consent" states. In all party consent states, it is illegal to record a private conversation unless everyone who is being recorded is aware and has consented to being recorded. In one party consent states (which are the majority of states), only one person (presumably the person doing the recording) needs to be aware of and consent to the recording. That difference can obviously make a huge impact on the legal ramifications of recording. For example, during the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton affair, the only person actually indicted for a crime (later dropped) was Linda Tripp, who was brought up on wiretapping charges for surreptitiously recording Lewinsky. This only happened because Maryland is an all party consent state. This is also why customer service calls start with "This call may be recorded for quality purposes..." - it's to inform you that the call is being recorded if you happen to live in an all party consent state.
- belval 6y ago
  I think your missed the point of the comment you were replying to. Why would we on HN, care about whether or not the recording was legal?
  - nefitty 6y ago
    At the very least, people might do some additional research before engaging in surreptitious “journalism”.
    - omarforgotpwd 6y ago
      There was nothing secret about it, we were invited to the HQ specifically to record
      - nefitty 6y ago
        Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that what you did was surreptitious. I meant, if other people have that idea before understanding the laws around recording conversations.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    I think it's interesting to know whether someone is breaking the law for the sake of a HN comment. Additionally, people might want to copy this person's behavior, and it would be useful to know whether the behavior is legal or not before doing so.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    The comment I was replying to seemed to interpret this as an "admissibility of evidence" issue. My point was that it has nothing to do with "admissibility", just that the GP comment was pointing out that if the person recorded this without the consent of all parties (which turned out not to be the case, but regardless) they could potentially be putting themselves in serious legal jeopardy.

Just curious because I would like to learn a different perspective, why would it matter? I could see maybe for a trial but here, on the internet, what is the issue?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Some states are what is known as "all party consent" states, while others are "one party consent" states. In all party consent states, it is illegal to record a private conversation unless everyone who is being recorded is aware and has consented to being recorded. In one party consent states (which are the majority of states), only one person (presumably the person doing the recording) needs to be aware of and consent to the recording. That difference can obviously make a huge impact on the legal ramifications of recording. For example, during the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton affair, the only person actually indicted for a crime (later dropped) was Linda Tripp, who was brought up on wiretapping charges for surreptitiously recording Lewinsky. This only happened because Maryland is an all party consent state. This is also why customer service calls start with "This call may be recorded for quality purposes..." - it's to inform you that the call is being recorded if you happen to live in an all party consent state.

belval 6y ago
I think your missed the point of the comment you were replying to. Why would we on HN, care about whether or not the recording was legal?
- nefitty 6y ago
  At the very least, people might do some additional research before engaging in surreptitious “journalism”.
  - omarforgotpwd 6y ago
    There was nothing secret about it, we were invited to the HQ specifically to record
    - nefitty 6y ago
      Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that what you did was surreptitious. I meant, if other people have that idea before understanding the laws around recording conversations.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  I think it's interesting to know whether someone is breaking the law for the sake of a HN comment. Additionally, people might want to copy this person's behavior, and it would be useful to know whether the behavior is legal or not before doing so.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  The comment I was replying to seemed to interpret this as an "admissibility of evidence" issue. My point was that it has nothing to do with "admissibility", just that the GP comment was pointing out that if the person recorded this without the consent of all parties (which turned out not to be the case, but regardless) they could potentially be putting themselves in serious legal jeopardy.