3 ms·

I don't have any dogs in this race, but Apollo should be careful about recording calls. Just because he is in a one-party location doesn't mean he hasn't violat

by bagels 3y ago

I don't have any dogs in this race, but Apollo should be careful about recording calls. Just because he is in a one-party location doesn't mean he hasn't violated the law wherever the other party is if they are in a two-party location and he didn't have consent from the other party.

3np 3y ago
That's not how that works.
- bagels 3y ago
  It's how it works in California, where Reddit is domiciled. kearney v. salomon smith barney
elbigbad 3y ago
Just in case anyone sees this and takes it seriously: this is absolutely not now that works.
- minimaxir 3y ago
  And even if it did in the US, I don't think anyone here is an expert on how phone consent laws work cross-country.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ericpauley 3y ago
  California courts disagree: https://web.archive.org/web/20060823045528/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S124739.PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20060823045528/http://www.courti... Still looking for precedent on this at the national level, and of course International is another story. I could imagine (IANAL-YMMV) it being further complicated by where Apollo (the business) is legally domiciled.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Just in case anyone sees the immediately previous response and takes it seriously, the claim “this is absolutely not how that works” is at best dangerously misleading. “Unfortunately, it is not always easy to tell which law applies to a communication, especially a phone call. For example, if you and the person you are recording are in different states, then it is difficult to say in advance whether federal or state law applies, and if state law applies which of the two (or more) relevant state laws will control the situation. Therefore, if you record a phone call with participants in more than one state, it is best to play it safe and get the consent of all parties. However, when you and the person you are recording are both located in the same state, then you can rely with greater certainty on the law of that state. In some states, this will mean that you can record with the consent of one party to the communication. In others, you will still need to get everyone’s consent.” https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-c...
kanbara 3y ago
man ain’t gonna get extradited to the us over recording consent. this makes no sense, these are STATE laws. if he is subject to jurisdiction of canada, then legally he is fine. that’s like florida saying they will go to CA and arrest people who have trans kids. they have no legal standing
- bagels 3y ago
  Nobody said anything about extradition. See kearney v. salomon smith barney.
SkyPuncher 3y ago
That's not how it works. If the state you are physically in allows 1-party recording, you can record.
- bagels 3y ago
  California disagrees. kearney v. salomon smith barney
thorncorona 3y ago
It doesn’t work like this. You are primarily beholden to the laws of the country you live in. Unless you are enough of an issue that the US uses its federal might to clobber you internationally. In that case, you are pretty universally fucked.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > It doesn’t work like this. It does though. > You are primarily beholden to the laws of the country you live in. This is only true to the extent that “primarily” is distinctly different from “exclusively”; in practice, you are beholden to the laws of any sovereignty that chooses to enforce them against you and has a reach that extends to your person and/or property of interest, either territorially, or through agreements (either pre-existing and general or specific to your situation and ad hoc) with other sovereigns, or through the will and capacity to exert force extraterritorially.
  - bagels 3y ago
    It doesn't have to involve extradition or treaties, just simply travelling to the place you have violated the laws of. Maybe it's unlikely or uncommon though.
George83728 3y ago
If you don't want to be recorded, then don't have phone calls with people who live in one party consent jurisdictions. This is common sense.

by bagels 3y ago

3np 3y ago

That's not how that works.

bagels 3y ago
It's how it works in California, where Reddit is domiciled. kearney v. salomon smith barney

elbigbad 3y ago

Just in case anyone sees this and takes it seriously: this is absolutely not now that works.

minimaxir 3y ago
And even if it did in the US, I don't think anyone here is an expert on how phone consent laws work cross-country.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ericpauley 3y ago
California courts disagree: https://web.archive.org/web/20060823045528/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S124739.PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20060823045528/http://www.courti... Still looking for precedent on this at the national level, and of course International is another story. I could imagine (IANAL-YMMV) it being further complicated by where Apollo (the business) is legally domiciled.
dragonwriter 3y ago
Just in case anyone sees the immediately previous response and takes it seriously, the claim “this is absolutely not how that works” is at best dangerously misleading. “Unfortunately, it is not always easy to tell which law applies to a communication, especially a phone call. For example, if you and the person you are recording are in different states, then it is difficult to say in advance whether federal or state law applies, and if state law applies which of the two (or more) relevant state laws will control the situation. Therefore, if you record a phone call with participants in more than one state, it is best to play it safe and get the consent of all parties. However, when you and the person you are recording are both located in the same state, then you can rely with greater certainty on the law of that state. In some states, this will mean that you can record with the consent of one party to the communication. In others, you will still need to get everyone’s consent.” https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-c...

kanbara 3y ago

man ain’t gonna get extradited to the us over recording consent. this makes no sense, these are STATE laws. if he is subject to jurisdiction of canada, then legally he is fine. that’s like florida saying they will go to CA and arrest people who have trans kids. they have no legal standing

bagels 3y ago
Nobody said anything about extradition. See kearney v. salomon smith barney.

SkyPuncher 3y ago

That's not how it works. If the state you are physically in allows 1-party recording, you can record.

bagels 3y ago
California disagrees. kearney v. salomon smith barney

thorncorona 3y ago

It doesn’t work like this. You are primarily beholden to the laws of the country you live in. Unless you are enough of an issue that the US uses its federal might to clobber you internationally. In that case, you are pretty universally fucked.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> It doesn’t work like this. It does though. > You are primarily beholden to the laws of the country you live in. This is only true to the extent that “primarily” is distinctly different from “exclusively”; in practice, you are beholden to the laws of any sovereignty that chooses to enforce them against you and has a reach that extends to your person and/or property of interest, either territorially, or through agreements (either pre-existing and general or specific to your situation and ad hoc) with other sovereigns, or through the will and capacity to exert force extraterritorially.
- bagels 3y ago
  It doesn't have to involve extradition or treaties, just simply travelling to the place you have violated the laws of. Maybe it's unlikely or uncommon though.

George83728 3y ago

If you don't want to be recorded, then don't have phone calls with people who live in one party consent jurisdictions. This is common sense.