5 ms·

Denunciations of the Chatham House Rule seem underdeveloped. According to the history on Wikipedia, it was invented to let members of post-WW1 English civic soc

by dcrazy 2y ago

Denunciations of the Chatham House Rule seem underdeveloped. According to the history on Wikipedia, it was invented to let members of post-WW1 English civic society discuss and debate potential reforms, and then get as much of that discussion into the public record as desired without having individual members pilloried for things they said during the discussion, even if the rest of the group disagreed with them. This doesn’t even seem unique. Newspaper editorial boards don’t assign individual names to editorials or sentences thereof. Individual members of Congressional commissions aren’t cited for the sentences they (or their staff) committed to reports. Chatham House Rule, meet Chesterton’s Fence.

echelon 2y ago
The easy solution to this in my state is to just wear a recording device. I live in a one party consent state for the recording of conversations [1,2], whether on the phone or in person. I don't know how y'all get away without it in California. It pairs really well with free speech, and it feels wrong to not have this legal feature available. [1] https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations/ https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-call... [2] https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/georgia-recording-law https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/georgia-recording-law
- dcrazy 2y ago
  The easy solution to what? I’m saying lack of like individual line-item attribution is a feature.
  - echelon 2y ago
    It feels incompatible with how the rest of the legal framework works. You can be recorded in public. In most of the US states you can be recorded in private so long as the one recording is a party to the conversation. Why does California do this separate weird thing? It doesn't feel like my rights should go away when I cross into your state. It feels like a glitch.
    - dcrazy 2y ago
      The Chatham House Rule is not a legal principle. If you violate it by recording a meeting in a one-party consent state, the most likely consequence is that you wouldn’t be invited back. (Someone else posited legal consequences under contract law, but I’m not a lawyer.) And for the record, California is not the only two-party consent state. There are twelve others.
      - blitzar 2y ago
        It is code of honour - those that break it have no honour and lose any standing in these places.
    - Aurornis 2y ago
      It’s not a legal thing at all. It’s a social agreement that people opt into at an event. Legally you can go to an event and act in bad faith without breaking the law. That’s not cool, but you’re not getting arrested for it. If (or when) word gets out that you’re breaking the rules, or worse, secretly recording people against their wishes then you’d find yourself excluded from those groups and private events.
    - thatcat 2y ago
      how is state law differing a glitch? privacy law is under developed federally considering the changes in scale distribution, storage, and capture tech. recording people without their awareness is a lie of omission that many would consider rude and manipulative.
    - robocat 2y ago
      A glitch that can be fixed by inserting a clause into the other solution mentioned: an NDA contract
- adbachman 2y ago
  "Chatham House Rules" is not a problem that needs solving. I've only seen it used as a courtesy extended by peers to each other out of mutual respect. "We will have conversations and share information and we agree we can act on the information but would all prefer not to be directly quoted or have the information we shared be shared with others outside the meeting." It's not legal, it's social. Break trust with a wiretap (really?) and you'll just find yourself no longer invited to the fun places.
  - dcrazy 2y ago
    > "We will have conversations and share information and we agree we can act on the information but would all prefer not to be directly quoted or have the information we shared be shared with others outside the meeting." My understanding is that the Chatham House rule specifically permits sharing the information shared in the meeting as long as it is not attributed to any specific attendee.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  If you don’t plan on following the rule, you don’t need a recording device. Rules like this are an agreement among friends or attendants at an even. If you go in to such an event with an awareness of the rules but an intent to go against them, that’s bad faith. If you go in to such an event with an intent to secretly record people and release recordings of them that’s just terrible behavior, regardless of what the law says.
  - echelon 2y ago
    This was a response to Chatham House Rule becoming widespread at public-at-large community events. Inviting the public and then putting them under a gag order isn't something we should be excited about. It feels like a slide into censorship. If you want to publish ideas with anonymity, there are forums for that: social media, journalists with anonymous sources, anonymous editorial pieces, to name just a few. Some of these channels even let you lean on titles or authority, eg. "editorial by an anonymous tech CEO". Chatham House Rule doesn't really work in practice, and it's a bizarre new social construct that stands in the way of fostering an open society. We shouldn't be ashamed of free speech. Rather than bending over backwards to create artificial safe spaces where we can say controversial things, we should normalize speaking plainly and openly with one another. This is a weird retreat and it makes society more reclusive and less open. It handicaps us and makes us less authentic.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  This rule isn't a problem to be solved. It is a voluntary contract among many people. Why break it if you just don't have to associate with them.
- ArnoVW 2y ago
  IANAL but it would seem to me that one party consent just means you can record it. It does not automatically mean you can divulge. And since you agreed to the chatham rules not to (i.e. you entered into a contract) you can still be liable for breach of contract in a civil court, with potential penalties and damages if those were part of the contract. Of course anything you record can still be used in criminal or civil proceedings (e.g. if your interlocutor admits to a crime or utters illegal or tortuous speech, such as fraud, harassment, or verbal abuse).
- EliRivers 2y ago
  It pairs really well with free speech How does it pair well with free speech? If I think that you might be recording me without telling me, I'll stop talking.
- benmmurphy 2y ago
  are you sure that is a solution? one party consent sounds like a default if the parties have not negotiated something else. but i wonder if it still stands if you have agreed to a different set of rules that would bar recording or at least bar the release of such recordings. for example the default rule is i can share what i want with a conversation i have with someone but if prior to the conversation i sign an NDA then i may face a civil tort if i share information barred by the NDA.

by dcrazy 2y ago

echelon 2y ago

The easy solution to this in my state is to just wear a recording device. I live in a one party consent state for the recording of conversations [1,2], whether on the phone or in person. I don't know how y'all get away without it in California. It pairs really well with free speech, and it feels wrong to not have this legal feature available. [1] https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations/ https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-call... [2] https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/georgia-recording-law https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/georgia-recording-law

dcrazy 2y ago
The easy solution to what? I’m saying lack of like individual line-item attribution is a feature.
- echelon 2y ago
  It feels incompatible with how the rest of the legal framework works. You can be recorded in public. In most of the US states you can be recorded in private so long as the one recording is a party to the conversation. Why does California do this separate weird thing? It doesn't feel like my rights should go away when I cross into your state. It feels like a glitch.
  - dcrazy 2y ago
    The Chatham House Rule is not a legal principle. If you violate it by recording a meeting in a one-party consent state, the most likely consequence is that you wouldn’t be invited back. (Someone else posited legal consequences under contract law, but I’m not a lawyer.) And for the record, California is not the only two-party consent state. There are twelve others.
    - blitzar 2y ago
      It is code of honour - those that break it have no honour and lose any standing in these places.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    It’s not a legal thing at all. It’s a social agreement that people opt into at an event. Legally you can go to an event and act in bad faith without breaking the law. That’s not cool, but you’re not getting arrested for it. If (or when) word gets out that you’re breaking the rules, or worse, secretly recording people against their wishes then you’d find yourself excluded from those groups and private events.
  - thatcat 2y ago
    how is state law differing a glitch? privacy law is under developed federally considering the changes in scale distribution, storage, and capture tech. recording people without their awareness is a lie of omission that many would consider rude and manipulative.
  - robocat 2y ago
    A glitch that can be fixed by inserting a clause into the other solution mentioned: an NDA contract
adbachman 2y ago
"Chatham House Rules" is not a problem that needs solving. I've only seen it used as a courtesy extended by peers to each other out of mutual respect. "We will have conversations and share information and we agree we can act on the information but would all prefer not to be directly quoted or have the information we shared be shared with others outside the meeting." It's not legal, it's social. Break trust with a wiretap (really?) and you'll just find yourself no longer invited to the fun places.
- dcrazy 2y ago
  > "We will have conversations and share information and we agree we can act on the information but would all prefer not to be directly quoted or have the information we shared be shared with others outside the meeting." My understanding is that the Chatham House rule specifically permits sharing the information shared in the meeting as long as it is not attributed to any specific attendee.
Aurornis 2y ago
If you don’t plan on following the rule, you don’t need a recording device. Rules like this are an agreement among friends or attendants at an even. If you go in to such an event with an awareness of the rules but an intent to go against them, that’s bad faith. If you go in to such an event with an intent to secretly record people and release recordings of them that’s just terrible behavior, regardless of what the law says.
- echelon 2y ago
  This was a response to Chatham House Rule becoming widespread at public-at-large community events. Inviting the public and then putting them under a gag order isn't something we should be excited about. It feels like a slide into censorship. If you want to publish ideas with anonymity, there are forums for that: social media, journalists with anonymous sources, anonymous editorial pieces, to name just a few. Some of these channels even let you lean on titles or authority, eg. "editorial by an anonymous tech CEO". Chatham House Rule doesn't really work in practice, and it's a bizarre new social construct that stands in the way of fostering an open society. We shouldn't be ashamed of free speech. Rather than bending over backwards to create artificial safe spaces where we can say controversial things, we should normalize speaking plainly and openly with one another. This is a weird retreat and it makes society more reclusive and less open. It handicaps us and makes us less authentic.
inglor_cz 2y ago
This rule isn't a problem to be solved. It is a voluntary contract among many people. Why break it if you just don't have to associate with them.
ArnoVW 2y ago
IANAL but it would seem to me that one party consent just means you can record it. It does not automatically mean you can divulge. And since you agreed to the chatham rules not to (i.e. you entered into a contract) you can still be liable for breach of contract in a civil court, with potential penalties and damages if those were part of the contract. Of course anything you record can still be used in criminal or civil proceedings (e.g. if your interlocutor admits to a crime or utters illegal or tortuous speech, such as fraud, harassment, or verbal abuse).
EliRivers 2y ago
It pairs really well with free speech How does it pair well with free speech? If I think that you might be recording me without telling me, I'll stop talking.
benmmurphy 2y ago
are you sure that is a solution? one party consent sounds like a default if the parties have not negotiated something else. but i wonder if it still stands if you have agreed to a different set of rules that would bar recording or at least bar the release of such recordings. for example the default rule is i can share what i want with a conversation i have with someone but if prior to the conversation i sign an NDA then i may face a civil tort if i share information barred by the NDA.