5 ms·

Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in peo

Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior. Do I really want to record that domestic incident for use in a divorce later? What if it backfires? Should I really record my boss saying that? What if there’s a 20% chance it backfires? Etc.

maxerickson 3y ago
Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? What's the difference?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? Actually, sometimes, yes; from both homeowners and occasionally Police, despite their reputation, with sometimes deadly consequences. You are afraid to pull the trigger if you have no idea what the jury will think. However, there is a difference in that the use of violence to defend yourself is more or less the same in all states, give or take Castle doctrine. Oregon and a few others are unique. But I would like to add, because your analogy is so strained, violence is not speech.
  - maxerickson 3y ago
    The point is that of course it has a chilling effect. It's not useful as a standalone principle...
- vkou 3y ago
  > Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? It can, as can literally any law when you're brushing up into the boundaries of a gray area. The principal question is: "Do we want to live in a society where violence is usually allowed?" - Definitely not. "Do we want to live in a society where recording people without their consent is usually allowed?" - Maybe? Depends on who you ask. Unlike violence, our social mores consider this almost entirely to be a gray area.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - revscat 3y ago
      Forgive me, but that doesn’t sound precise at all. That sounds like anarcho-capitalist anti-democratic marketing speak.
      - logicchains 3y ago
        >anti-democratic So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? A reminder that Hitler was democratically elected; there's a reason the US is formally a Republic.
        qotgalaxy 3y ago
        [dead]
        vkou 3y ago
        > So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? Sure, how else would you stop a violent threat to society? Say, a chap who starts shooting up a mall? Or a foreign invader? I mean, if you're an unconditional pacifist, who believes that violence should never be used, even in response to violence, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree with it. But it doesn't sound like you are.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Instead of peppering me with labels, why not respond to the substance (Also definitely not anarcho-capitalist lol)
    - vkou 3y ago
      The state can only do so in certain circumstances, not in the general case.
    - labster 3y ago
- abfan1127 3y ago
  Most Concealed/Carry Firearms courses discuss this very area. When can you brandish a weapon? when can you show you have it without brandishing? When can you use it? Its so complex, I choose to not carry in my state most of the time because of the opportunity for mistake, and therefore possible prosecution of gray area laws that mostly hinge on a prosecutor choosing or not choosing to proceed.
tppiotrowski 3y ago
Do you want Apple and Google to record and archive your private FaceTime/Hangout/Zoom sessions? With your romantic partners?
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  They aren’t a party in those conversations.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  That’s not the situation here. This is about whether I can record my romantic partner when I am in a private conversation with her, not in public, without her consent. Or, your boss, without him suing you for recording a private comment about making the office whiter.
- revscat 3y ago
  From my reading of this decision that would not be allowed.
luxuryballs 3y ago
Yeah I was thinking this kind of ban only passed because too many government officials were being caught saying some shit on tape and once it is illegal to have recorded it then it’s no longer valid evidence.
xoa 3y ago
>Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior I've never liked or thought 2-party consent requirements made sense because it felt like an extremely overly broad restriction on our own potential memories, discrimination based on mental ability, and with negative implication for future prosthetics. Like, why should someone with a photographic memory inherently have a right to have better recollection of their own personal interactions then someone with memory loss problems who wants to use a life log so they can go back over the day later? What about future implants and such? I'd much prefer if the law was more fine grained and focused on the negative edges. Like, perhaps consent would be required for sharing with the general public in cases not of public interest (in the legally defined sense), or that if one wanted to share any snippets the other party could demand the complete recording be shared as well. Or there could be technical requirements, like all future recording hardware must time stamp and cryptographically sign each frame so that any alteration is trivial to detect. Basically go after worries of "cherry picking" specifically. There could be specific protections for highly sensitive conversations like medical, or to address power imbalances (clients/customers/patients vs service providers). But giving any party to a conversation a total universal veto over anyone else having a personal record by default never felt right and I'm glad I don't live in one of those states. After all, everyone can (and does!) demand NDAs or the like as they wish.
hospitalJail 3y ago
I basically treat all conversations like they are being recorded. Privacy is dead, laws are just bandaids.

maxerickson 3y ago

Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? What's the difference?

gjsman-1000 3y ago
> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? Actually, sometimes, yes; from both homeowners and occasionally Police, despite their reputation, with sometimes deadly consequences. You are afraid to pull the trigger if you have no idea what the jury will think. However, there is a difference in that the use of violence to defend yourself is more or less the same in all states, give or take Castle doctrine. Oregon and a few others are unique. But I would like to add, because your analogy is so strained, violence is not speech.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  The point is that of course it has a chilling effect. It's not useful as a standalone principle...
vkou 3y ago
> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? It can, as can literally any law when you're brushing up into the boundaries of a gray area. The principal question is: "Do we want to live in a society where violence is usually allowed?" - Definitely not. "Do we want to live in a society where recording people without their consent is usually allowed?" - Maybe? Depends on who you ask. Unlike violence, our social mores consider this almost entirely to be a gray area.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - revscat 3y ago
    Forgive me, but that doesn’t sound precise at all. That sounds like anarcho-capitalist anti-democratic marketing speak.
    - logicchains 3y ago
      >anti-democratic So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? A reminder that Hitler was democratically elected; there's a reason the US is formally a Republic.
      - qotgalaxy 3y ago
        [dead]
      - vkou 3y ago
        > So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? Sure, how else would you stop a violent threat to society? Say, a chap who starts shooting up a mall? Or a foreign invader? I mean, if you're an unconditional pacifist, who believes that violence should never be used, even in response to violence, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree with it. But it doesn't sound like you are.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Instead of peppering me with labels, why not respond to the substance (Also definitely not anarcho-capitalist lol)
  - vkou 3y ago
    The state can only do so in certain circumstances, not in the general case.
  - labster 3y ago
abfan1127 3y ago
Most Concealed/Carry Firearms courses discuss this very area. When can you brandish a weapon? when can you show you have it without brandishing? When can you use it? Its so complex, I choose to not carry in my state most of the time because of the opportunity for mistake, and therefore possible prosecution of gray area laws that mostly hinge on a prosecutor choosing or not choosing to proceed.

tppiotrowski 3y ago

Do you want Apple and Google to record and archive your private FaceTime/Hangout/Zoom sessions? With your romantic partners?

GloomyBoots 3y ago
They aren’t a party in those conversations.
gjsman-1000 3y ago
That’s not the situation here. This is about whether I can record my romantic partner when I am in a private conversation with her, not in public, without her consent. Or, your boss, without him suing you for recording a private comment about making the office whiter.
revscat 3y ago
From my reading of this decision that would not be allowed.

luxuryballs 3y ago

Yeah I was thinking this kind of ban only passed because too many government officials were being caught saying some shit on tape and once it is illegal to have recorded it then it’s no longer valid evidence.

xoa 3y ago

>Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior I've never liked or thought 2-party consent requirements made sense because it felt like an extremely overly broad restriction on our own potential memories, discrimination based on mental ability, and with negative implication for future prosthetics. Like, why should someone with a photographic memory inherently have a right to have better recollection of their own personal interactions then someone with memory loss problems who wants to use a life log so they can go back over the day later? What about future implants and such? I'd much prefer if the law was more fine grained and focused on the negative edges. Like, perhaps consent would be required for sharing with the general public in cases not of public interest (in the legally defined sense), or that if one wanted to share any snippets the other party could demand the complete recording be shared as well. Or there could be technical requirements, like all future recording hardware must time stamp and cryptographically sign each frame so that any alteration is trivial to detect. Basically go after worries of "cherry picking" specifically. There could be specific protections for highly sensitive conversations like medical, or to address power imbalances (clients/customers/patients vs service providers). But giving any party to a conversation a total universal veto over anyone else having a personal record by default never felt right and I'm glad I don't live in one of those states. After all, everyone can (and does!) demand NDAs or the like as they wish.

hospitalJail 3y ago

I basically treat all conversations like they are being recorded. Privacy is dead, laws are just bandaids.