I'd be interested to see how a court interprets that given technology that allows discreet remote recording. E.g. you might have to reasonably expect that the g

I'd be interested to see how a court interprets that given technology that allows discreet remote recording. E.g. you might have to reasonably expect that the guy next to you on the bus could be wearing a wire, but what if someone has a powerful enough microphone that they can record quiet conversations at similar distances to a telephoto lens? I'm unsure what the current actual availability of such technology is, but I'm suggesting it for the sake of argument Or what if you've hidden a microphone on a secluded bench, and record a conversation where the subjects reasonably believe there is no one around for 20 metres? Consider that businesses put up "you're on CCTV" signs for a reason. A lot of the reason is deterrence, but depending on the jurisdiction it's sometimes considered a legal necessity (or at least prudent) to make the subject aware of the recording, even in a private space A relevant event for reading is the "People Staring At Computers" controversy (TL;DR: bugging the cameras on display Macs in an Apple Store) https://www.wired.com/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/ https://www.wired.com/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/