16 ms·

Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice to or obtaining consent from the rec

by loteck 3y ago

Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice to or obtaining consent from the recording’s subjects when created in a place where the subjects lack a reasonable expectation of privacy“ (e.g. when talking in public). Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/03/22-35271.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/03/2...

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Since this ruling came from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, wouldn’t this ruling only affect Alaska, Montana, and Oregon from the above 5 states?
- apple4ever 3y ago
  Yes that is correct. Decisions of federal appeal courts only apply in their circuit, not the entire country.
  - xoa 3y ago
    Though worth noting that different circuit courts absolutely pay attention to each others rulings, even though they're not legally binding precedent. If a clear case and solid ruling happens in one circuit the others may all go on similar lines. If a different federal appeals court comes to a totally different conclusion, that's a "circuit split" and is one of the major points at which SCOTUS becomes very likely to then step in and resolve it for the whole country. If this ruling gets appealed not impossible SCOTUS would take it anyway, but I'm not enough of a court watcher to have any sense of whether it might be considered ripe or important enough from just this one instance.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Courts below a circuit also pay attention to other circuits. If there is no ruling in their circuit a judge will cite the other circuit(s) in their ruling. (they can go either way, but they make it clear they considered it and why they think the other circuits are right/wrong) Rarely a judge will cite a different circuit and go against their own circuit, but this is very rare (either the judge will point out substantial differences from the case the circuit ruled on and those differences mean the ruling shouldn't apply - this is likely to be appealed and if the higher court remains firm it is a black mark on the lower judge; or the judge will point out the law changed and so the ruling isn't valid anymore unless the higher court rules it unconstitutional which of course then lower judge cannot do)
HWR_14 3y ago
I did not see such a limitation in the ruling (although I admit to just scanning it). Instead the ruling seemed to focus on the distinction between the permissibility of recording police officers versus other government officials.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Based on the page 5 and 6 description of Oregon statute 165.540(1)(c), loteck’s conclusion seems correct to me. Page 43 is the conclusion where the statute is reversed and remanded.
sschueller 3y ago
I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violating their privacy and are required to get consent. This consent can also be revoked at any time later.
- hug 3y ago
  I’ve been sitting here for a while trying to come up with how to eloquently put this in English and I cannot. Maybe English lacks the appropriate terminology to express the difference between privacy and publicity within the expanded scope of current technology. It’s my only language, and I like to think I’m pretty good at it, but I’m absolutely stumped as to how you’d exactly word exactly what you’re not understanding. I feel like it’s a case of the language we speak shaping our interpretation of what is just, and doing so in such a way that it’s hard to even explain what we’re now missing. The problem, in so many words, is that these days the act of being in public is public. That’s a weird sentence to write, and I’m not sure how else to put it. Previously, the memory of any public act was restricted to those who were there to observe it at the time. Any acts in public were by themselves public. Acts in private were private. There was a third quasi-state: anonymous isn’t the right word, because you were always identifiable, but by happenstance you just weren’t. You were in public, but not publicised. Recognisable, but not recognised. Observable, but not observed. By definition though you were always in public, never in private. Modern technology has somewhat erased the third state by slowly but surely eroding the cases in which you are not observed, tracked, recorded, or identified, by some technology or another. It’s made public very public, if you excuse the unavoidable pleonasm. There’s no good word for the third state, that I can think of, and it makes me sad.
  - frankfrankfrank 3y ago
    The challenge you have is not language related, but rather logic related. The issue our Swiss friend raises is valid, no matter the language. Do Americans not have an expectation of privacy even when talking in public, based on the expectations of the individuals engaged in speech? For example, when you are at a restaurant with friends, is there not an expectation of privacy within the context of your conversation with someone? Any reasonable person will have an expectation of privacy that will generally be limited to all those people around your table and with whom you will be making eye contact, as long as you are speaking at a tone that is reasonable for that context. No? Is the speaker going to be speaking so that everyone in the restaurant can understand their speech? No? So it’s not public then, right? Ignoring incidental overhearing, of course. Inversely, if we consider what the American system clearly considers private, the home and, by extension, the car; if you have ever heard a conversation through thin walls between apartments or maybe a phone conversation on car speaker blasted speakerphone, is that private then? … are Phone conversations then also not private since in most cases the caller will not likely be aware that their direct conversation partner is blasting their conversation to the parking lot on the car’s speaker phone? These scenarios, among others, beckon a requirement to make privacy expectations approaching unachievable. Is that reasonable? No, of course not. And that’s before we explore things like focused beam microphones that make all conversations within any line of sight or even just things you whisper into someone’s ear not radically private based on the current American nonsensical definition reasonable and privacy. The problem in America is not the speech part, but rather that the logic and reason itself has been inverted and perverted by sophists and abusive manipulators over the decades, which have turned everything upside down, including the definitions of “reasonable”, “public”, and “private”, i.e., the core logic of the matter. None of the founders of America and the writers of the Constitution would recognize any of these current assumptions built into definitive and even the words they wrote, let alone all the illogical and lazy cruft that has been added after the twelfth amendment. They would think we’ve gone insane, because were have our, more accurately, sophist psychological manipulators and abusers have driven us so insane that we engage in the horrid abominations and abuses that are normalized all around us today. It has long been an ever worsening entropy problem.
hnbad 3y ago
So this basically allows blanket surveillance of anything you do in public to the point that paparazzi or stalkers could just legally chase and livestream you every minute after you exit your home until you enter another private space? I'll never understand why Americans believe there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. An alleyway is very different from a stage in the town square.
- criley2 3y ago
  Two points: 1) Americans place freedom of speech (including photography or recording things) very highly and are willing to suffer some damage in exchange for more freedom. 2) Limits on recording in public would very quickly and very easily be weaponized by police against minorities, leftists, and basically anyone else who resists the creeping tide of ---- well, you know, right wing politics. Saving celebrity's from paparazzi sounds nice and good, but we're more worried about what happens when the police show up. Can we record them attacking us, or will that now be considered an additional crime that the policeman will get to punish us for? It's very easy to see our rigged Supreme Court ruling that police officers have "an expectation of privacy on the job" in light of your points.
  - aapl88889 3y ago
    Have you seen videos of bystanders trying to record militant leftist groups like Antifa?
    - criley2 3y ago
      Is that a thing in your country? In America, there are no "militant leftist groups" and all of the armed "militia" "insurrectionist" militant groups are right-wing. All of the so-called leftists (we have basically zero support for actual leftism) here are just garden variety rioting young adults who dgaf about politics.
      - sclarisse 3y ago
        Naah, we’ve got the more militant types in a few spots, most notably Seattle. They’re not just figments of the Fox News imagination. To some extent they’re even an inspiration for the right wing militants. Substantially fewer guns though, gotta be fair.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
So how does this square with police not letting people film them?
- Tostino 3y ago
  I'm sorry, I can't hear you over this Taylor Swift song I've got blasting...
  - anon73044 3y ago
    That doesn't really stop people from filming, just uploading to YouTube.

by loteck 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Since this ruling came from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, wouldn’t this ruling only affect Alaska, Montana, and Oregon from the above 5 states?

apple4ever 3y ago
Yes that is correct. Decisions of federal appeal courts only apply in their circuit, not the entire country.
- xoa 3y ago
  Though worth noting that different circuit courts absolutely pay attention to each others rulings, even though they're not legally binding precedent. If a clear case and solid ruling happens in one circuit the others may all go on similar lines. If a different federal appeals court comes to a totally different conclusion, that's a "circuit split" and is one of the major points at which SCOTUS becomes very likely to then step in and resolve it for the whole country. If this ruling gets appealed not impossible SCOTUS would take it anyway, but I'm not enough of a court watcher to have any sense of whether it might be considered ripe or important enough from just this one instance.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Courts below a circuit also pay attention to other circuits. If there is no ruling in their circuit a judge will cite the other circuit(s) in their ruling. (they can go either way, but they make it clear they considered it and why they think the other circuits are right/wrong) Rarely a judge will cite a different circuit and go against their own circuit, but this is very rare (either the judge will point out substantial differences from the case the circuit ruled on and those differences mean the ruling shouldn't apply - this is likely to be appealed and if the higher court remains firm it is a black mark on the lower judge; or the judge will point out the law changed and so the ruling isn't valid anymore unless the higher court rules it unconstitutional which of course then lower judge cannot do)

HWR_14 3y ago

I did not see such a limitation in the ruling (although I admit to just scanning it). Instead the ruling seemed to focus on the distinction between the permissibility of recording police officers versus other government officials.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Based on the page 5 and 6 description of Oregon statute 165.540(1)(c), loteck’s conclusion seems correct to me. Page 43 is the conclusion where the statute is reversed and remanded.

sschueller 3y ago

I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy". In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violating their privacy and are required to get consent. This consent can also be revoked at any time later.

hug 3y ago
I’ve been sitting here for a while trying to come up with how to eloquently put this in English and I cannot. Maybe English lacks the appropriate terminology to express the difference between privacy and publicity within the expanded scope of current technology. It’s my only language, and I like to think I’m pretty good at it, but I’m absolutely stumped as to how you’d exactly word exactly what you’re not understanding. I feel like it’s a case of the language we speak shaping our interpretation of what is just, and doing so in such a way that it’s hard to even explain what we’re now missing. The problem, in so many words, is that these days the act of being in public is public. That’s a weird sentence to write, and I’m not sure how else to put it. Previously, the memory of any public act was restricted to those who were there to observe it at the time. Any acts in public were by themselves public. Acts in private were private. There was a third quasi-state: anonymous isn’t the right word, because you were always identifiable, but by happenstance you just weren’t. You were in public, but not publicised. Recognisable, but not recognised. Observable, but not observed. By definition though you were always in public, never in private. Modern technology has somewhat erased the third state by slowly but surely eroding the cases in which you are not observed, tracked, recorded, or identified, by some technology or another. It’s made public very public, if you excuse the unavoidable pleonasm. There’s no good word for the third state, that I can think of, and it makes me sad.
- frankfrankfrank 3y ago
  The challenge you have is not language related, but rather logic related. The issue our Swiss friend raises is valid, no matter the language. Do Americans not have an expectation of privacy even when talking in public, based on the expectations of the individuals engaged in speech? For example, when you are at a restaurant with friends, is there not an expectation of privacy within the context of your conversation with someone? Any reasonable person will have an expectation of privacy that will generally be limited to all those people around your table and with whom you will be making eye contact, as long as you are speaking at a tone that is reasonable for that context. No? Is the speaker going to be speaking so that everyone in the restaurant can understand their speech? No? So it’s not public then, right? Ignoring incidental overhearing, of course. Inversely, if we consider what the American system clearly considers private, the home and, by extension, the car; if you have ever heard a conversation through thin walls between apartments or maybe a phone conversation on car speaker blasted speakerphone, is that private then? … are Phone conversations then also not private since in most cases the caller will not likely be aware that their direct conversation partner is blasting their conversation to the parking lot on the car’s speaker phone? These scenarios, among others, beckon a requirement to make privacy expectations approaching unachievable. Is that reasonable? No, of course not. And that’s before we explore things like focused beam microphones that make all conversations within any line of sight or even just things you whisper into someone’s ear not radically private based on the current American nonsensical definition reasonable and privacy. The problem in America is not the speech part, but rather that the logic and reason itself has been inverted and perverted by sophists and abusive manipulators over the decades, which have turned everything upside down, including the definitions of “reasonable”, “public”, and “private”, i.e., the core logic of the matter. None of the founders of America and the writers of the Constitution would recognize any of these current assumptions built into definitive and even the words they wrote, let alone all the illogical and lazy cruft that has been added after the twelfth amendment. They would think we’ve gone insane, because were have our, more accurately, sophist psychological manipulators and abusers have driven us so insane that we engage in the horrid abominations and abuses that are normalized all around us today. It has long been an ever worsening entropy problem.

hnbad 3y ago

So this basically allows blanket surveillance of anything you do in public to the point that paparazzi or stalkers could just legally chase and livestream you every minute after you exit your home until you enter another private space? I'll never understand why Americans believe there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. An alleyway is very different from a stage in the town square.

criley2 3y ago
Two points: 1) Americans place freedom of speech (including photography or recording things) very highly and are willing to suffer some damage in exchange for more freedom. 2) Limits on recording in public would very quickly and very easily be weaponized by police against minorities, leftists, and basically anyone else who resists the creeping tide of ---- well, you know, right wing politics. Saving celebrity's from paparazzi sounds nice and good, but we're more worried about what happens when the police show up. Can we record them attacking us, or will that now be considered an additional crime that the policeman will get to punish us for? It's very easy to see our rigged Supreme Court ruling that police officers have "an expectation of privacy on the job" in light of your points.
- aapl88889 3y ago
  Have you seen videos of bystanders trying to record militant leftist groups like Antifa?
  - criley2 3y ago
    Is that a thing in your country? In America, there are no "militant leftist groups" and all of the armed "militia" "insurrectionist" militant groups are right-wing. All of the so-called leftists (we have basically zero support for actual leftism) here are just garden variety rioting young adults who dgaf about politics.
    - sclarisse 3y ago
      Naah, we’ve got the more militant types in a few spots, most notably Seattle. They’re not just figments of the Fox News imagination. To some extent they’re even an inspiration for the right wing militants. Substantially fewer guns though, gotta be fair.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

So how does this square with police not letting people film them?

Tostino 3y ago
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over this Taylor Swift song I've got blasting...
- anon73044 3y ago
  That doesn't really stop people from filming, just uploading to YouTube.