> Why on earth does it matter? That recording can be used in many ways, anonymously or not, in a court or in an informal investigation. You don't even have to u

> Why on earth does it matter? That recording can be used in many ways, anonymously or not, in a court or in an informal investigation. You don't even have to use it, and if you don't use it, it simply doesn't exist. That's not my understanding. Courts don't allow hearsay or evidence without someone certifying for its accuracy, and for good reason. Think of deepfakes for a recent example of why, although this rule far far predates them. And in this specific case where many of us live, California Penal Code 630 says: [1] > (d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. So basically if you obtain a recording of someone doing something illegal without getting that person's consent, the recording can be used against you but explicitly can't be used against them. I view this as an unjust law that protects the powerful at the expense of the powerless. I have a friend whose manager basically said "you should change careers because you're a girl". She might have been able to do something about it if not for this law... [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=632 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....