5 ms·
> People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading love to the internet. Audio is different from video. This is technically i
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> People were pissed once they figured out that private conversations were uploading love to the internet.
Audio is different from video. This is technically illegal, as consent is explicitly required in the law for audio recording.
- greenavocado 1y agoMost states in the United States allow one one-party consent for audio recordings.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y agoThey're not party to others' conversations.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoAs long as someone is not hidden, or trying to be deceptive, then they would be considered party to the conversation. Someone walking around live streaming would become party to all the conversations.
- jon-wood 1y agoAnd most states also allow you to leave a bar thirty seconds after your friend you arranged to meet there arrives, it would still be considered rude to do so and probably you wouldn’t be welcome in the future if you kept doing it.
- blackoil 1y agoYou are free to quit the party, but host won't be arrested for recording and sharing video.
- serial_dev 1y agoI get that for whistleblowers, journalists, investigators, ... I don't think it's relevant for a birthday party with children. If it's me, I'm leaving the party. If it's my children attending, I'm strongly recommending them to leave the party (or just leave with them, depending on their age). Live-streaming a birthday party of children is obnoxious behavior that should not be tolerated.
- sdoering 1y agoIf it’s me, in Germany, I would instantly tell this person to stop filming and to delete any recordings. And if they streamed live to expect a letter from the (German equivalent of the) DA soon, as I would - as soon as back home - I would press charges and search damages. Because in German publishing images/recordings of an individual without consent violates basic constitutional rights. And that’s nothing to f** with. If minors were involved you’d be in a whole different can of soup even. So while I don’t advocate for violence - as others have hinted in this thread - a black eye could actually be the lesser negative outcome for such a person.
- f1shy 1y agoThis is the case where I find law in Europe better than USA. In germany you need consent to film or record other people. The downside is the misuse of the law, what happens constantly, to basically prohibit (at least in practice) ANY recording activity. Is not unheard of, I have seen and experienced myself quite a few times, for example, a tourist being stopped and asked to delete a video of a simple recording in a park (police called immediately), because a random stupid person was around and wants to show how good he knows his rights… (see sister comment)
- webstrand 1y agoUnder US federal law one-party consent requires that you actually be a party to the conversation. This is why most security cameras do not record audio. If you're wandering around livestreaming and picking up conversations you're not a participant in, it's a violation of federal wiretapping laws.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoPresumably, a person holding up a phone live-streaming would be party to the conversation. If two people are talking at a party, and a third person obviously comes by within earshot, then the two people can either stop talking, or they can continue, but the third person is now party to the conversation.
- kjksf 1y agoYou're so obviously wrong. I watched multiple videos from Portland ICE protest, multiple videos of ICE arresting people, all with audio. Half the people at protests are recording. If you were right all that would be illegal. The magic word is: "reasonable expectation of privacy". If you're in public, like in streets, in the mall etc. you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy. You can be recorded, with audio, and it's legal. The two party consent rules only apply to private conduct e.g. you have a phone conversation. In states with two party consent the other person can't record the conversation without notifying you. What you describe as "US federal law" sound more like anti-wiretapping law i.e. I can't plant a bug in your house and record your conversations. Which is duh, but not relevant to being recorded while in public.
- webstrand 1y agoI figured that "reasonable expectation of privacy" was a given in the scenario. It's a family gathering, the livestreamer is not being obvious about their recording, there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Your ICE protest example is performed in public, its a protest, its not meant to be private, thus fails the test of "reasonable expectation of privacy". Action taken by agents of the state are also public actions, this has been tried many times in court. Two-party consent is not federal law and varies state-by-state. But again it requires that you actually be a party to consent. And yes by "US Federal Law" I am referencing the anti-wiretapping laws which prohibit, among other things, interception of oral communication via electronic means unless at least one party consents.
- buildsjets 1y agoMost parents will punch you in the face if you try to record audio of thier children without two party consent.
- greenavocado 1y agoDo that in a public place and you will catch an assault and/or battery charge
- buildsjets 1y agoSuch a trial is an acceptable result, in exchange for committing well justified violence. Any jury with parents on it will acquit.
- RajT88 1y agoEve if legal, the guy was in the wrong.
- bee_rider 1y agoLaws almost always vary by jurisdiction.
- hdgvhicv 1y agoWhich jurisdiction are you taking? Japan? Christmas Island? Cuba?
- Izkata 1y ago11 states in the US have two-party-consent laws. IIRC GP is correct about recordings of private conversations in these states.
- i_am_jl 1y agoReally? What jurisdiction has that rule? Are you sure you're not conflating simple audio recording with a recording of audio telecommunications?
- GJim 1y agoWhat in gods name does the law have to do with it?