6 ms·
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?
by 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 agoAt the very least, people might do some additional research before engaging in surreptitious “journalism”.
- omarforgotpwd 6y agoThere was nothing secret about it, we were invited to the HQ specifically to record
- nefitty 6y agoSorry, 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.