4 ms·

The simple approach is to default to single party consent but allow explicit nonconsent. In other words nobody can be recorded without their knowledge, but if t

by User23 3y ago

The simple approach is to default to single party consent but allow explicit nonconsent. In other words nobody can be recorded without their knowledge, but if they’re informed a recording is being made then remaining in the conversation is consent.

akhosravian 3y ago
That isn’t single party consent it is all party consent. Single party consent is anyone in the conversation may record without telling others about it. Or a third party may record with the approval of any one who is in the conversation.
DougEiffel 3y ago
Strongly disagree. There are so many situations in which abusive people (employers, romantic partners, politicians) need to be caught unaware or they won't be caught at all. Obviously there are lines to be drawn when we are talking about the government recording citizens. Warrants are an important check on power for this. But any individual should be able to record (mostly) anything. At the very least, it can save you money when a customer service rep claims they never said something. At most, it can keep you out of prison.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  The best part about the customer-service scenario is that the vast majority now say "this call may be recorded..." Fine. I'm recording it!
- lamontcg 3y ago
  But I worry about everyone's ring doorbells spying on all the neighbors.
  - woodson 3y ago
    But that’s not one-party consent. The ring cameras aren’t a party.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      Just give the SCOTUS a bit more time.
      - nerdponx 3y ago
        By walking or standing in view of this doorbell, you agree to the following terms...
        lamontcg 3y ago
        Corporations are people, so Amazon is a person, and if you invite Amazon into your home then they can record a conversation heard across the fence into someone else's yard.
- fardo 3y ago
  In many cases, the act of recording is itself an abusive action. Privacy is valuable, desirable, and the freedom to converse knowing there isn’t a recording running is itself the freedom to speak without all conversations being subject to chilling effects. Society is not improved by the threat that every ephemeral conversation is potentially being collected for later use, abuse, and scrutiny. This therefore to me seems like a thinly-veiled variant on “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”. A world of constant recording is not a better one.

by User23 3y ago

akhosravian 3y ago

That isn’t single party consent it is all party consent. Single party consent is anyone in the conversation may record without telling others about it. Or a third party may record with the approval of any one who is in the conversation.

DougEiffel 3y ago

Strongly disagree. There are so many situations in which abusive people (employers, romantic partners, politicians) need to be caught unaware or they won't be caught at all. Obviously there are lines to be drawn when we are talking about the government recording citizens. Warrants are an important check on power for this. But any individual should be able to record (mostly) anything. At the very least, it can save you money when a customer service rep claims they never said something. At most, it can keep you out of prison.

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
The best part about the customer-service scenario is that the vast majority now say "this call may be recorded..." Fine. I'm recording it!
lamontcg 3y ago
But I worry about everyone's ring doorbells spying on all the neighbors.
- woodson 3y ago
  But that’s not one-party consent. The ring cameras aren’t a party.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    Just give the SCOTUS a bit more time.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      By walking or standing in view of this doorbell, you agree to the following terms...
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        Corporations are people, so Amazon is a person, and if you invite Amazon into your home then they can record a conversation heard across the fence into someone else's yard.
fardo 3y ago
In many cases, the act of recording is itself an abusive action. Privacy is valuable, desirable, and the freedom to converse knowing there isn’t a recording running is itself the freedom to speak without all conversations being subject to chilling effects. Society is not improved by the threat that every ephemeral conversation is potentially being collected for later use, abuse, and scrutiny. This therefore to me seems like a thinly-veiled variant on “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”. A world of constant recording is not a better one.