24 ms·

Can you provide a statue citation? Modern devices already make a recording of the 'call' (it is fundamental to the working of the device). Consent is explicit

Can you provide a statue citation? Modern devices already make a recording of the 'call' (it is fundamental to the working of the device). Consent is explicit in choosing to use a device that is well-known to make recordings. There is no expectation of privacy due to the explicit consent mentioned above and wide-spread allegations and revelations of US intelligence agencies and their affiliates and subsidiaries copying and storing Internet communications, as well as being able to 'listen in' on communications as they occur.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
Downmods instead of citations of claimed facts?
- ohazi 12y ago
  You're confusing legal constraints and technical constraints. Nobody's claiming that a phone doesn't create, transmit, and receive "recordings" in order to act like a phone. The pertinent question is whether/when you are allowed to make a recording of a phone call, for yourself, for whatever reason. You're being downvoted because you're missing the point.
- biot 12y ago
  15 seconds of googling led me to section 632(a) of the California Penal Code. You could have done the same research yourself instead of promoting an incorrect understanding of the law and then asking that others do your homework for you.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Really? 632(a)? This 632(a)?: >632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The one that explicitly exempts radio devices? The type of devices that modern cellular phones are? And people are arguing about 'expectations of privacy' and 'explicit consent', when the actual statute uses 'confidential communication'? My phone calls are not confidential and they occur over radio devices. HN's behavior here is rather shameful.
    - biot 12y ago
      Maybe you ought to keep reading through 632.6 and 632.7. Once you've read those, keep reading the entire thing plus the body of case law which explores these concepts and their practical applications. You're really doing yourself no favors arguing from ignorance and expecting others to do the research you're apparently too entitled to do yourself.
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Maybe you ought not cite irrelevant statute?
- CPLX 12y ago
  Google "two party consent states" and you'll learn why you are getting confused responses. You are talking about "explicit consent" and "expectation of privacy" and so on that sound legalistic but have no meaning in this context, while ignoring the fact that there are laws, rulings, and precedent already on this issue.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    >while ignoring the fact that there are laws, rulings, and precedent already on this issue. Of which, none you can cite?
    - CPLX 12y ago
      Try harder: https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=two+party+consent+california https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=two+party+consent+cal...
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        The first link in your source states: >California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989). Emphasis mine. It then follows with: >If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place. Again, emphasis mine. Your first link appears to confirm my claims and specifically contradicts what you claimed in your previous post. Next.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

jsprogrammer 12y ago

Downmods instead of citations of claimed facts?

ohazi 12y ago
You're confusing legal constraints and technical constraints. Nobody's claiming that a phone doesn't create, transmit, and receive "recordings" in order to act like a phone. The pertinent question is whether/when you are allowed to make a recording of a phone call, for yourself, for whatever reason. You're being downvoted because you're missing the point.
biot 12y ago
15 seconds of googling led me to section 632(a) of the California Penal Code. You could have done the same research yourself instead of promoting an incorrect understanding of the law and then asking that others do your homework for you.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Really? 632(a)? This 632(a)?: >632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The one that explicitly exempts radio devices? The type of devices that modern cellular phones are? And people are arguing about 'expectations of privacy' and 'explicit consent', when the actual statute uses 'confidential communication'? My phone calls are not confidential and they occur over radio devices. HN's behavior here is rather shameful.
  - biot 12y ago
    Maybe you ought to keep reading through 632.6 and 632.7. Once you've read those, keep reading the entire thing plus the body of case law which explores these concepts and their practical applications. You're really doing yourself no favors arguing from ignorance and expecting others to do the research you're apparently too entitled to do yourself.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      Maybe you ought not cite irrelevant statute?
CPLX 12y ago
Google "two party consent states" and you'll learn why you are getting confused responses. You are talking about "explicit consent" and "expectation of privacy" and so on that sound legalistic but have no meaning in this context, while ignoring the fact that there are laws, rulings, and precedent already on this issue.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  >while ignoring the fact that there are laws, rulings, and precedent already on this issue. Of which, none you can cite?
  - CPLX 12y ago
    Try harder: https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=two+party+consent+california https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=two+party+consent+cal...
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      The first link in your source states: >California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989). Emphasis mine. It then follows with: >If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place. Again, emphasis mine. Your first link appears to confirm my claims and specifically contradicts what you claimed in your previous post. Next.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]