17 ms·
In Canada you can record someone (phone call, in person, etc) if just one party consents to the recording. In other words, if I'm a phone call with someone, ev
by FlingPoo 3y ago
In Canada you can record someone (phone call, in person, etc) if just one party consents to the recording. In other words, if I'm a phone call with someone, even if there are several people on the call, it's NOT illegal for me to record them, as long as I'm a participant in the call. It's called the "one party consent" exception. I have no obligation to ask, or tell the others on the call that I'm recording.
- thatguy0900 3y agoThis is the case in some us states as well
- addisonl 3y agoSurprisingly, most states (39) are one party consent: https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/one-party-consent-states/ https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/one-party-consent-state...
- echelon 3y agoCalifornia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, Montana, and Delaware need to get with the picture.
- sneak 3y agoSurprisingly? Why shouldn't you be allowed to record the things you hear?
- dylan604 3y agoI interpret the "surprisingly" as shocked that that many have common sense one party consent rules. My skepticism would think idiotic rules to be the majority.
- cubefox 3y agoFrom my (European) perspective this sounds strange. Wouldn't you be worried when e.g. your employer or partner is secretly recording your conversations with them? In Canada it seems to be even legal to publish these conversations without consent, though I don't know about the US.
- simiones 3y agoPublishing is a whole other thing, but why should I be worried that someone is recording what I'm saying, in general? And if I'm discussing sensitive information (say, I'm discussing an extra-marital affair, or illegal conduct), why should I think I can rely on the law to protect me from the recording? Is my marriage less ruined if the recording was illegally made and illegally presented to my spouse?
- cubefox 3y ago> Publishing is a whole other thing, but why should I be worried that someone is recording what I'm saying, in general? Well, this reminds me of > You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. The phrase - widely used in discussions of Internet security - is most commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels in 1933. You probably agree with that statement while I have different intuitions. > why should I think I can rely on the law to protect me from the recording? Why should you think the law can protect you from anything? Because violating the law comes with a substantial potential cost, which is a risk many actors are not willing to take.
- simiones 3y ago> You probably agree with that statement while I have different intuitions. I most certainly do not. That phrase has nothing to do with this discussion in fact - it applies to cases of making private statements either public or at least known to the state apparatus. Private recordings of private conversations have no similar issue. In my opinion, recording a conversation you and I have is no different from keeping hold of a letter or an email that you sent me, and it's certainly not something I routinely fear. And, when I do say things that I fear others may hear, I am not content with the fact that I could sue you for recording that information. I would go to technical lengths to actually try to ensure that you can't record it. > Why should you think the law can protect you from anything? Because violating the law comes with a substantial potential cost, which is a risk many actors are not willing to accept. The law has almost no power in private settings. Technically, if I bought a music CD from Sony, I am not allowed to play it to you, since that would require performance rights. Does Sony or anyone on the planet expect me to fear legal repercussions for doing so in the privacy of my home? Obviously not. It will only even become a possible legal issue if I start publicizing this in some way. Similarly, even if it's technically illegal for me to hold recordings of my conversations with friends, it is in practice all but impossible for me to be prosecuted about it unless and until I publish them. Even if you suspected I did record our conversations, you would need significant proof of that before convincing a judge to issue a search warrant to try to prove I did. If I am simply keeping these for my own purposes and not sharing with others, you will never have such proof. So, even if it were deeply illegal, I would have very little reason to fear it in practice.
- wang_li 3y agoIn the US the only function of two party consent laws is to allow people to lie about what they said. Even in two party consent states you can still report what someone said to you. And they can lie and say no I never said that. Without recordings it's just one person's word against the other's.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoAnd while it might feel counterintuitive how obvious a good idea it is, it becomes a lot more intuitive when you consider the contrary implications. You can not only be a party to something without being able to demonstrate what you observed, but you can be a party to something where any convincing accusation about your own involvement is equally compelling to your own recount by default. Even if you don’t realize you’re a party to anything in particular. Being able to record your own experience is a matter of basic autonomy and self defense. Being denied it is a gift to anyone with the power or motivation to exploit that. Edit: I didn’t even look at who was involved in the case. I am not remotely surprised to find the ruling favors political opponents, and I’m not swayed by that either. If anything, it’s better for everyone if PV has to play by the same rules as anyone they’re interacting with.
- firstlink 3y agoIndeed, PV targets will now be able to record themselves physically assaulting PV agents!
- eyelidlessness 3y agoThank you for demonstrating my point I guess?
- cubefox 3y agoI assume this allows people to publish seemingly private conversations you had with them. (Both recording and publishing would be illegal in the EU.)
- cvalka 3y agoIn most of the states
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- morkalork 3y agoIt was interesting to see this fact crop up with the reddit vs. Appolo debacle.
- bob-09 3y agoHow did this apply? I admit I haven't been following the drama closely.
- jtokoph 3y agoThe apollo dev is based in Canada and recorded the phone calls with Reddit without them knowing. The Apollo dev released transcripts (and perhaps recordings) of the calls to disprove statements made by Reddit.
- judge2020 3y agoHas a lawyer weighed in on if this was actually legal? It’s concerning wiretap laws with participants in two different countries, so the legality might not be just “is it legal under Canada law”
- michaelmrose 3y agoWhy would a Canadian talking on his Canadian phone service expect to be bound by the laws of a foreign country because a call terminated there.
- brightlancer 3y agoExpectation's got nothing to do with it. Any country can claim jurisdiction on any action committed anywhere; the question is whether that country can reach you.
- pyuser583 3y agoWhy would an American talking on an American phone service lack protection provided by American laws?
- 03JVO25KDI6BZV3 3y agoThis is a good reason to avoid phonecalls with Canadians
- darth_avocado 3y agoThere are legitimate reasons for having one party consent legal. My experience with employer harassment has been that it’s extremely hard to prove discriminatory behavior without being able to record without consent.
- logdap 3y agoAnd this kind of thing, trouble with a boss/landlord/etc, is a lot more likely to personally impact the average person than any sort of PV-related scenario. Single party consent is a clear net positive for most people.
- pvarangot 3y agoIn California you can record without consent if you have reasons to suspect a crime is going to be committed. It's not the most straightforward thing to get away with and you should work with a lawyer before you do it to be sure it will be accepted as evidence, but you can totally do it.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agobefore you do it* *before you REVEAL that you did it
- withinboredom 3y agoNo, before. Don’t give cops freebies.
- ThunderSizzle 3y agoDon't talk to a cop without your lawyer present. Don't keep the recordings on your phone.
- coldtea 3y agoThere's always the risk of being caught while doing it, or to be exposed that you've done it before the time that you intend to "reveal" it. So it's better to talk with a laywer and get informed of your options and the risks, and how to go about it, before you do it, not merely before you reveal you did it.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoGood luck trying to record a phone call on any modern smartphone. They purposely make it nearly impossible, unless you want to use speakerphone and the analog hole.
- rstuart4133 3y agoIt must depend on region. In Australia the Google phone app has a [Record] button. My mother could use it. Google documents it here: https://support.google.com/phoneapp/answer/9803950?hl=en https://support.google.com/phoneapp/answer/9803950?hl=en I often use it.
- bleepblop 3y agoIt's actually not difficult to patch a recorder into your phone's output.
- mcpackieh 3y agoTo be fair, the analog hole is effective and easy to 'exploit'.
- noonething 3y agoGrapheneOS
- starkparker 3y agoOregon, where this is filed, also has one-party consent on phone calls. Considering the plaintiff, this is mostly about hidden cameras and surreptitious recording in person.
- netheril96 3y agoDo you use Android phone? Since iOS doesn't allow phone call recording without jailbreak.
- ale42 3y agoThere are lots of other types of phones besides mobile phones (nowadays, usually implying VoIP somewhere in most places, but some countries still have analog landlines, too). Assuming that all phone calls are either made with Android or iOS is reductive to say the least...
- moffkalast 3y agoAt this point I'm really wondering why anyone still uses iOS given the ever increasing list of things it can't do for completely arbitrary reasons.