4 ms·

Its more than reasonable. It's called respect. Their house and their drive and just because voice could travel 100-feet sill doesn't mean they have the right t

Its more than reasonable. It's called respect. Their house and their drive and just because voice could travel 100-feet sill doesn't mean they have the right to record it. If the speed limit is twenty and someone is driving thirty, does that give you the right to drive thirty too?

ZoF 4y ago
BeetleB 4y ago
You're comparing apples and oranges. One is legal and the other isn't. They absolutely have the right to record audio that is audible on their property. It used to be the norm that if you don't want your neighbors hearing you the onus is on you to speak quietly in a private place. With the increase in such devices the norm too will shift to "know that a device is recording audio in certain zones"
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Is there a "you're both wrong and I hope you live far away from me" option? One should travel about the same speed as all the other traffic and one should not record people without their express consent regardless of the law. The behavior both you and the person you replying to are advocating for are just examples of being a jerk within the letter of the law.
- mikodin 4y ago
  I agree but to a point. I am curious how this plays out when what is recorded wouldn't necessarily be audible or intelligible by the human ear but is able to be picked up and amplified via post processing or more sensitive devices. Will we then just have to always assume that a device is recording audio in all zones? Countermeasures will be figured out, but it's an interesting thought process.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    It's a scary thought process, but yes - you will have to assume it and technical[1], not legal countermeasures will be thought out. Sure, one can have laws, but these kinds of laws are incredibly hard to enforce when it becomes trivial for everyone and their grandmother to break the law. It's frankly much easier to police Lyft/Uber usage than this. [1] Cone of Silence from Get Smart...?
- bink 4y ago
  That's not exactly true. Many states have laws outlawing recording "private" conversations without the consent of all parties. As far as I know that would even include recording someone having a private conversation with you on your own property. Whether or not someone talking on their own property and their voice carrying over their property line would qualify is up for debate.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    That's actually a good point. I'd like to see if someone has done an analysis on this. Factors to consider: - Whether the recording was intentional (i.e. if I set up cameras for security, and it so happens to record all your conversations on your front porch, this is unintentional, but if I set up a microphone by the wall, it's intentional). - The type of communication - most resources I'm finding discuss phones and similar channels. From what I could find: I just checked one state: Video recordings are fine, but if they capture the audio of the conversation, then it's a violation of the law. Other places define a violation of reasonable expectation of privacy to require an explicit intent to eavesdrop - so if it's a side effect of my security system, it's not illegal. In a number of states, your front porch or backyard are not considered private places. If the conversation is between you and someone else (not the neighbor), then by federal law, intentionally recording the conversation is illegal (neither party consented). When it's unintentional, it'll probably vary from state to state. In most places they can point the cameras onto the exterior of your property. But if it can see inside a bedroom (even if the window is open and no curtains are drawn), it can be a violation. Interesting side effect of searching for this: Video monitoring of your baby may be illegal!
    - googlryas 4y ago
      I wonder if these laws run afoul of the ADA - You can't do zero-party consent audio recordings - but you can record video, which could just as easily capture a deaf person's conversation using sign language. Basically, it sounds like this law affords protections to only certain, non-disabled citizens.
- balderdash 4y ago
  I agree the parent is wrong that they do have the “right” (really more it’s not-illegal) but don’t think it doesn’t mean it’s not unreasonable and obnoxious.

ZoF 4y ago

BeetleB 4y ago

You're comparing apples and oranges. One is legal and the other isn't. They absolutely have the right to record audio that is audible on their property. It used to be the norm that if you don't want your neighbors hearing you the onus is on you to speak quietly in a private place. With the increase in such devices the norm too will shift to "know that a device is recording audio in certain zones"

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Is there a "you're both wrong and I hope you live far away from me" option? One should travel about the same speed as all the other traffic and one should not record people without their express consent regardless of the law. The behavior both you and the person you replying to are advocating for are just examples of being a jerk within the letter of the law.
mikodin 4y ago
I agree but to a point. I am curious how this plays out when what is recorded wouldn't necessarily be audible or intelligible by the human ear but is able to be picked up and amplified via post processing or more sensitive devices. Will we then just have to always assume that a device is recording audio in all zones? Countermeasures will be figured out, but it's an interesting thought process.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  It's a scary thought process, but yes - you will have to assume it and technical[1], not legal countermeasures will be thought out. Sure, one can have laws, but these kinds of laws are incredibly hard to enforce when it becomes trivial for everyone and their grandmother to break the law. It's frankly much easier to police Lyft/Uber usage than this. [1] Cone of Silence from Get Smart...?
bink 4y ago
That's not exactly true. Many states have laws outlawing recording "private" conversations without the consent of all parties. As far as I know that would even include recording someone having a private conversation with you on your own property. Whether or not someone talking on their own property and their voice carrying over their property line would qualify is up for debate.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  That's actually a good point. I'd like to see if someone has done an analysis on this. Factors to consider: - Whether the recording was intentional (i.e. if I set up cameras for security, and it so happens to record all your conversations on your front porch, this is unintentional, but if I set up a microphone by the wall, it's intentional). - The type of communication - most resources I'm finding discuss phones and similar channels. From what I could find: I just checked one state: Video recordings are fine, but if they capture the audio of the conversation, then it's a violation of the law. Other places define a violation of reasonable expectation of privacy to require an explicit intent to eavesdrop - so if it's a side effect of my security system, it's not illegal. In a number of states, your front porch or backyard are not considered private places. If the conversation is between you and someone else (not the neighbor), then by federal law, intentionally recording the conversation is illegal (neither party consented). When it's unintentional, it'll probably vary from state to state. In most places they can point the cameras onto the exterior of your property. But if it can see inside a bedroom (even if the window is open and no curtains are drawn), it can be a violation. Interesting side effect of searching for this: Video monitoring of your baby may be illegal!
  - googlryas 4y ago
    I wonder if these laws run afoul of the ADA - You can't do zero-party consent audio recordings - but you can record video, which could just as easily capture a deaf person's conversation using sign language. Basically, it sounds like this law affords protections to only certain, non-disabled citizens.
balderdash 4y ago
I agree the parent is wrong that they do have the “right” (really more it’s not-illegal) but don’t think it doesn’t mean it’s not unreasonable and obnoxious.