3 ms·

That's the thing that pisses me off. If someone talks to me and I can remember it in my head, there is already a recording. Putting this recording on tape only

by kova12 4y ago

That's the thing that pisses me off. If someone talks to me and I can remember it in my head, there is already a recording. Putting this recording on tape only makes it more accurate. It doesn't change the nature that recollection in one form or another has been made. So the real effect is when there is a dispute, the evidence which could otherwise be solid, becomes instead a "he said, she said" type of evidence and justice instead of being precise becomes a flip of a coin

thaumasiotes 4y ago
It's even dumber than that. You're legally allowed to remember what people say to you. You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence. But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Of course a recording would be stronger evidence than written notes. It just wouldn’t be legal evidence unless it was obtained legally. One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
  - formerly_proven 4y ago
    Usual reminder that fruit of the poisonous tree is a US special
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I'd like to believe that there's already a sort of balance in place created by the fact that with enough evidence of someone doing something really really wrong, even if that evidence couldn't be used in a court room, that can still be presented to the public who will use that information to reach something approaching justice. I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters. I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence. That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory. It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory. > It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later. This is great if you assume everyone is always telling the truth to the best of their ability, but that's not such a great assumption in court. Giving greater weight to notes mostly means that someone who plans to screw you over benefits from automatic victories against people who didn't plan not to get screwed.
autoexec 4y ago
I think there's a substantive difference between something you experience and recollect from the input of your own senses and something digitized, recorded, and preserved in perfect form in a format that is easily shared in every detail and easily repurposed in endless ways. I do think that people should be able to record events that occur on their own properly, and even their own phone calls without consent of another person, but I worry about the implications of saying that our ability to remember events and the ability to log data are basically the same. Feels like a loophole that a lot of evil people and companies would happily jump through. Generally though, I don't really see an ethical problem with data collected strictly for an individual's personal use and I guess in theory we could have two party consent laws that acknowledge that but still offer some protections.

by kova12 4y ago

thaumasiotes 4y ago

It's even dumber than that. You're legally allowed to remember what people say to you. You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence. But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.

kube-system 4y ago
Of course a recording would be stronger evidence than written notes. It just wouldn’t be legal evidence unless it was obtained legally. One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  Usual reminder that fruit of the poisonous tree is a US special
- autoexec 4y ago
  I'd like to believe that there's already a sort of balance in place created by the fact that with enough evidence of someone doing something really really wrong, even if that evidence couldn't be used in a court room, that can still be presented to the public who will use that information to reach something approaching justice. I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters. I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
autoexec 4y ago
> You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence. That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory. It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory. > It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later. This is great if you assume everyone is always telling the truth to the best of their ability, but that's not such a great assumption in court. Giving greater weight to notes mostly means that someone who plans to screw you over benefits from automatic victories against people who didn't plan not to get screwed.

autoexec 4y ago

I think there's a substantive difference between something you experience and recollect from the input of your own senses and something digitized, recorded, and preserved in perfect form in a format that is easily shared in every detail and easily repurposed in endless ways. I do think that people should be able to record events that occur on their own properly, and even their own phone calls without consent of another person, but I worry about the implications of saying that our ability to remember events and the ability to log data are basically the same. Feels like a loophole that a lot of evil people and companies would happily jump through. Generally though, I don't really see an ethical problem with data collected strictly for an individual's personal use and I guess in theory we could have two party consent laws that acknowledge that but still offer some protections.