Recording private conversations and making them public, For it or against it?

[planetdoc]

Spinoff of the Donald Sterling thread. What are your thoughts on recording and making public private conversations?

Please vote before further reading! Thanks

Here are the laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#All-party_consent_states):
Twelve states currently require that all parties consent to the recording: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington

Here is what Kareem Abdul Jabaar said (http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/):


Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.

So, if we’re all going to be outraged, let’s be outraged that we weren’t more outraged when his racism was first evident. Let’s be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let’s be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars.

[Chief Gump]

I have to agree with Kareem. Never liked it when private conversations are made public.

[J Diddy]

The concept of a conversation being recorded without knowledge or consent is bad deal for sure. However, in the post Miranda rights world we live in we as a society have gotten this silly notion that because something was obtained in a poor manner that it absolves the perpetrator of any wrongdoing in spewing his racial speech.


The man isn't being tried in a court of law for what he said, therefore procedural has nothing to do with it. The NBA is a big business that is dependent on sponsorships, merchandise, etc. His comments became public and hurt the brand and that is why this is being done.

[-King-]

Of course everybody is against it. But that doesn't mean that when it happens the person making the stupid comments is absolved from punishment if necessary.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Msmith]

Does the end justify the mean?

[mikey23545]

I think everyone should have bugs and wiretaps planted in their houses just to make sure no one ever says anything that disagrees with Group Think.

[LiveSteam]

I watched the Fat Albert show every Saturday as a kid
True story

[cosmo20002]

The wording of the poll question and responses renders it worthless.

If you're not Rain Man, don't do a poll.

[TEX]

I think everyone should have bugs and wiretaps planted in their houses just to make sure no one ever says anything that disagrees with Group Think.

:clap: Rep!

[mikey23545]

I watched the Fat Albert show every Saturday as a kid
True story

I hope you don't think that having watched a show about black kids as a youth is going to help you escape the righteousness of the offended left as an adult.

[BigMeatballDave]

Of course everybody is against it. But that doesn't mean that when it happens the person making the stupid comments is absolved from punishment if necessary.
Posted via Mobile Device

This

[mikey23545]

The wording of the poll question and responses renders it worthless.

If you're not Rain Man, don't do a poll.

Is it not phrased in the formal language of Group Think?

[TEX]

Of course everybody is against it. But that doesn't mean that when it happens the person making the stupid comments is absolved from punishment if necessary.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes. That can only happen in a court of law. :hmmm:

[InChiefsHeaven]

To me, the problem is that things can be manipulated, taken out of context, whatever. Remember when the Zimmerman 911 call was released, they said he used the word "coon". Which he did not. Now, that was just an example of something being mis-interpreted and then posited as fact. I could see where someone selectively records something because they have an agenda too.

There's too many opportunities for corruption here as well. The person doing the recording may have an agenda. Once the shit is out there, there's no taking it back.

In short, I don't like it. People are entitled to their stupid ass opinions and they should not be made public.

[TEX]

To me, the problem is that things can be manipulated, taken out of context, whatever. Remember when the Zimmerman 911 call was released, they said he used the word "coon". Which he did not. Now, that was just an example of something being mis-interpreted and then posited as fact. I could see where someone selectively records something because they have an agenda too.

There's too many opportunities for corruption here as well. The person doing the recording may have an agenda. Once the shit is out there, there's no taking it back.

In short, I don't like it. People are entitled to their stupid ass opinions and they should not be made public.

Exactly. In fact the first release of the 911 tapes in the Zimmerman case did just that. They were edited to show that Zimmerman only said,"He looked Black" Instead of showing that Zimmerman was responding to a direct question of," Was he Black, White, Hispanic? " Once they were out - dude was GUILTY in the court of public opinion. The guy who edited the tape was eventually fired but not with the venom or as swiftly as deserved, the narrative / agenda had been set.

[MahiMike]

This has been the bigger issue for me and people blew right by it. How this can be legal is beyond me.

[BigMeatballDave]

This has been the bigger issue for me and people blew right by it. How this can be legal is beyond me.

He's free to sue his GF and whoever was involved in recording him.

[BigMeatballDave]

This would be a big deal if the NBA secretly recorded him.

[Baby Lee]

This would be a big deal if the NBA secretly recorded him.

Privacy is all but completely dead in this country.

If people are going to be watching me all day long in my home in my Boxers, ranting about the Chiefs anyways, I'm going to start ranting about the Chiefs in the public square in my Boxers.

[Titty Meat]

It sets a great precedent.

Next someone should release a recording of Dwayne Bowe and his views on gays and if we dont like it suspend him

[-King-]

It sets a great precedent.

Next someone should release a recording of Dwayne Bowe and his views on gays and if we dont like it suspend him

You're amazingly stupid. And players have been fined for homophobic statements.
Posted via Mobile Device

[planetdoc]

Does the end justify the mean?

thats really what it comes down to.

Of course everybody is against it. But that doesn't mean that when it happens the person making the stupid comments is absolved from punishment if necessary.

thanks for sharing your opinion. the question than to ask is if punishment is necessary for private statements that are not illegal? If so, how much punishment.

mark cuban has some thoughts on this (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-on-donald-sterling-2014-4?_escaped_fragment_=GpRMR#!GpRMR).

[Titty Meat]

You're amazingly stupid. And players have been fined for homophobic statements.
Posted via Mobile Device

Very mature Queen does your teachers know your on Chiefsplanet instead of doing school work?

So a player should be fined for making a private homophobic statement? Next should we have thought police?

[planetdoc]

The concept of a conversation being recorded without knowledge or consent is bad deal for sure. However, in the post Miranda rights world we live in we as a society have gotten this silly notion that because something was obtained in a poor manner that it absolves the perpetrator of any wrongdoing in spewing his racial speech.


The man isn't being tried in a court of law for what he said, therefore procedural has nothing to do with it. The NBA is a big business that is dependent on sponsorships, merchandise, etc. His comments became public and hurt the brand and that is why this is being done.

thanks for sharing your opinion. you make some good points.

Spinoff question: should people be at risk of losing their license in similar instances? why or why not?

Apparently ~ 1 in 3 occupations in the US require a license to work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing). Most have clauses saying that one can lose a license if one bring "ill repute to the field of practice."

so, for example, If someone secretly records and makes public racist/homophobic/etc. comments a physician makes, should that physician be at risk of losing his/her medical license? What if that individual doesn't say anything and simply signs a petition (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/04/mozilla-chief-learns-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-dont-deserve-job/)?

[-King-]

Very mature Queen does your teachers know your on Chiefsplanet instead of doing school work?

So a player should be fined for making a private homophobic statement? Next should we have thought police?

Question, did you go to college? Did you even graduate high school? From how you act on here, I'm sure the answer to both is no. Funny thing is that you think you're much smarter than you actually are.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Titty Meat]

Question, did you go to college? Did you even graduate high school? From how you act on here, I'm sure the answer to both is no. Funny thing is that you think you're much smarter than you actually are.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm smarter than you and after your homosexual requests last night i'm not answering any personal questions about myself to you.

Now get back to school im sure you have a paper to write about why weed should be legalized.

[MahiMike]

He's free to sue his GF and whoever was involved in recording him.

Yes but- how/Why did we get here as a society? We are a bigger Gestapo than even the government.

[-King-]

thats really what it comes down to.



thanks for sharing your opinion. the question than to ask is if punishment is necessary for private statements that are not illegal? If so, how much punishment.

mark cuban has some thoughts on this (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-on-donald-sterling-2014-4?_escaped_fragment_=GpRMR#!GpRMR).
Being illegal doesn't matter. He didn't get punished by the law. He got punished by the NBA.

Him staying in the league would have had significant negative affect on not only the Clippers but the NBA as a whole and they made move to avoid that. Any business would do the same. If you're representing your billion dollar business in a negative light, don't be surprised if they kick you out.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Titty Meat]

thanks for sharing your opinion. you make some good points.

Spinoff question: should people be at risk of losing their license in similar instances? why or why not?

Apparently ~ 1 in 3 occupations in the US require a license to work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing). Most have clauses saying that one can lose a license if one bring "ill repute to the field of practice."

so, for example, If someone secretly records and makes public racist/homophobic/etc. comments a physician makes, should that physician be at risk of losing his/her medical license? What if that individual doesn't say anything and simply signs a petition (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/04/mozilla-chief-learns-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-dont-deserve-job/)?

Forcefully? No but theres ways around it if people want Sterling to sell the team. Pull advertisments and boycott the games.

[planetdoc]

by the way, Since it seems the majority voted in 1 area, I'll say what I voted:

I went with "it depends."

Its a tough question. For example, If a secretly (illegally) recorded conversation uncovers illegal activity (such as war crimes), than I could justify it.

The question isnt cut and dry. It goes to "does the ends justify the means."

[-King-]

I'm smarter than you and after your homosexual requests last night i'm not answering any personal questions about myself to you.

Now get back to school im sure you have a paper to write about why weed should be legalized.

LMAO I thought so. You declining to answer gives me the answer I needed.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Garcia Bronco]

I am okay with it as long as all parties agree to recording the call.

[BigMeatballDave]

The concept of a conversation being recorded without knowledge or consent is bad deal for sure. However, in the post Miranda rights world we live in we as a society have gotten this silly notion that because something was obtained in a poor manner that it absolves the perpetrator of any wrongdoing in spewing his racial speech.


The man isn't being tried in a court of law for what he said, therefore procedural has nothing to do with it. The NBA is a big business that is dependent on sponsorships, merchandise, etc. His comments became public and hurt the brand and that is why this is being done.
Well stated, sir.

[planetdoc]

The wording of the poll question and responses renders it worthless.

If you're not Rain Man, don't do a poll.

I am open to constructive criticism. How would you have worded it?

[Jimmya]

This is what happens when Liberals attack.

[ModSocks]

The concept of a conversation being recorded without knowledge or consent is bad deal for sure. However, in the post Miranda rights world we live in we as a society have gotten this silly notion that because something was obtained in a poor manner that it absolves the perpetrator of any wrongdoing in spewing his racial speech.


The man isn't being tried in a court of law for what he said, therefore procedural has nothing to do with it. The NBA is a big business that is dependent on sponsorships, merchandise, etc. His comments became public and hurt the brand and that is why this is being done.

This. All of this.

[alnorth]

Obviously its not OK to secretly record a conversation and release it to the world (unless its a murder confession or something)

BUT

if it does happen and the secretly-recorded conversation makes you look like an asshole that we should all shun, then that is just too damned bad. This is not a criminal courtroom, and we are not going to put our fingers in our ears and pretend we didn't hear it, if its somehow made public and we all know what you said, then you are going to suffer the non-criminal consequences for it regardless of how the audio was captured.

If you don't like it, sue whoever recorded you, if you can. If you want to be safe, then you should either not be an asshole, or just assume that privacy is a myth in this day and age and you can always be secretly recorded.

[mikey23545]

want to be safe, then you should either not be an asshole, or just assume that privacy is a myth in this day and age and you can always be secretly recorded.


:eek:

So we should begin living as if we are under constant surveillance? You find this to be a satisfactory way of life?

It is always easy to spot a liberal...

[Baby Lee]

Wonder where Linda Tripp is these days?

[Chief Gump]

:eek:

So we should begin living as if we are under constant surveillance? You find this to be a satisfactory way of life?

It is always easy to spot a liberal...

I agree on the surveillance stuff but wasn't Pattaue (sp?) all for the government spying on us? He is far from a liberal.

[J Diddy]

thanks for sharing your opinion. you make some good points.

Spinoff question: should people be at risk of losing their license in similar instances? why or why not?

Apparently ~ 1 in 3 occupations in the US require a license to work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing). Most have clauses saying that one can lose a license if one bring "ill repute to the field of practice."

so, for example, If someone secretly records and makes public racist/homophobic/etc. comments a physician makes, should that physician be at risk of losing his/her medical license? What if that individual doesn't say anything and simply signs a petition (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/04/mozilla-chief-learns-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-dont-deserve-job/)?


I think at that point, seeing as how the government would be involved, it would become a free speech issue and not a business one.

[mikey23545]

I agree on the surveillance stuff but wasn't Pattaue (sp?) all for the government spying on us? He is far from a liberal.

Yes, and you might have seen me and him lock horns many times over that issue.

Inexplicable.

[J Diddy]

:eek:

So we should begin living as if we are under constant surveillance? You find this to be a satisfactory way of life?

It is always easy to spot a liberal...
So it boils down to you wanting the government to save you from comments that you actually made but don't want to take credit for?

[mikey23545]

Wonder where Linda Tripp is these days?

Probably living under an assumed identity after the way she was reviled by the media.

[mr. tegu]

:eek:

So we should begin living as if we are under constant surveillance? You find this to be a satisfactory way of life?

It is always easy to spot a liberal...

Anyone can record you anytime they want. That is reality. Deal with it.

If they have bad intentions then you can take action against them.

[mikey23545]

So it boils down to you wanting the government to save you from comments that you actually made but don't want to take credit for?

LOLWAT?

I don't think the government, or anyone else should be monitoring me in my own home unless they have a warrant, and I don't accept the "Well, you'll just have to get used to it" reasoning...

[LoneWolf]

Pretty simple solution to all of this. Don't say anything in private that you would be afraid to say in a public setting. You can have all the opinions you want and all the racist views you want, but keep them to yourself unless you want to be judged by others for your opinions.

[J Diddy]

LOLWAT?

I don't think the government, or anyone else should be monitoring me in my own home unless they have a warrant, and I don't accept the "Well, you'll just have to get used to it" reasoning...

The point he brought up was that in this day and age you should assume privacy is a myth. I take that to mean he's referring to the numerous portable devices that can record and post to the internet in a minute. Nobody mentioned your house or the government in that capacity.

What exactly is your solution to that problem and how does it get remedied without the government intervening on your behalf to protect you from a statement that you actually made and don't want to own up to.

(Using "you" figuratively here, not saying that this has been an issue for you)

[mikey23545]

Anyone can record you anytime they want. That is reality. Deal with it.

If they have bad intentions then you can take action against them.


http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/835/3o7t.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/n73o7tj)

[mikey23545]

The concept of a conversation being recorded without knowledge or consent is bad deal for sure. However, in the post Miranda rights world we live in we as a society have gotten this silly notion that because something was obtained in a poor manner that it absolves the perpetrator of any wrongdoing in spewing his racial speech.


The man isn't being tried in a court of law for what he said, therefore procedural has nothing to do with it. The NBA is a big business that is dependent on sponsorships, merchandise, etc. His comments became public and hurt the brand and that is why this is being done.

Pretty simple solution to all of this. Don't say anything in private that you would be afraid to say in a public setting. You can have all the opinions you want and all the racist views you want, but keep them to yourself unless you want to be judged by others for your opinions.


So even in your own home you should be afraid to speak your mind? And keep in mind I'm not talking about only racist comments, or only about NBA owners, but all of us, about any matter...You really find this acceptable?!?!!?

Oh, let me guess..."You'll just have to get used to it"...

What a chilling, chilling world you envision...

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/835/3o7t.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/n73o7tj)

[MahiMike]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/835/3o7t.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/n73o7tj)

And he is us.

[-King-]

So even in your own home you should be afraid to speak your mind? And keep in mind I'm not talking about only racist comments, or only about NBA owners, but all of us, about any matter...You really find this acceptable?!?!!?

Oh, let me guess..."You'll just have to get used to it"...

What a chilling, chilling world you envision...

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/835/3o7t.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/n73o7tj)

Maybe if you're going to speak your mind at home, you shouldnt speak it to someone who would easily get offended by it and have incentive to expose you on it. The guy was saying racist shit to his Mexican American girlfriend. He should have known that shit would come back to bite him eventually. He shouldn't be so stupid next time.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Baby Lee]

So it boils down to you wanting the government to save you from comments that you actually made but don't want to take credit for?

Is there something wrong with that?

Is everything you say every moment of your life a forthright and considered, sober, final and best expressed formation of your opinion on every matter?

[alnorth]

Whining and crying about privacy, in the age where everyone has a cell phone that can record without you knowing, is similar to whining about how hot it is in Tucson.

You can rant and rave all you want about how hot it is, and how life would be so much better if it was 70 degrees everyday, but you can't live in a fantasyland. At some point you have to deal with reality on reality's terms. If you live in Tucson, its going to be damned hot outside pretty often, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Similarly, if you say or do something outrageous, especially near a crowd, you will probably be recorded. If you are in your own home with someone else who has it out for you, they may decide to record you and throw it on the internet, and there would probably not be much you can do about it. Whatever you say on that recording might not be used to put you in jail, but thats small comfort if your boss fires you, you lose your license, or whatever.

[planetdoc]

If you are in your own home with someone else who has it out for you, they may decide to record you and throw it on the internet, and there would probably not be much you can do about it. Whatever you say on that recording might not be used to put you in jail, but thats small comfort if your boss fires you, you lose your license, or whatever.

do you feel the same way if someone took intimate photos for a significant other and those photos leaked to the internet?

[ptlyon]

do you feel the same way if someone took intimate photos for a significant other and those photos leaked to the internet?

Show em! Who cares what he thinks!

[alnorth]

do you feel the same way if someone took intimate photos for a significant other and those photos leaked to the internet?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

How you feel about it is irrelevant. I'd be against intimate photos leaked to the internet, but I'm also against being eaten alive by grizzly bears. If I'm in an Alaska wilderness and a Grizzly grabs me, what can I do about it? Tell him that I disagree with being eaten?

The privacy myth is not something you can reason with, it is a grizzly bear. You can't wish it away or argue that its wrong, all you can do is try to avoid the bear, bring bear mace, or a gun, or whatever else you can think of to avoid being eaten by bears.

[Baby Lee]

Whining and crying about privacy, in the age where everyone has a cell phone that can record without you knowing, is similar to whining about how hot it is in Tucson.

You can rant and rave all you want about how hot it is, and how life would be so much better if it was 70 degrees everyday, but you can't live in a fantasyland. At some point you have to deal with reality on reality's terms. If you live in Tucson, its going to be damned hot outside pretty often, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Similarly, if you say or do something outrageous, especially near a crowd, you will probably be recorded. If you are in your own home with someone else who has it out for you, they may decide to record you and throw it on the internet, and there would probably not be much you can do about it. Whatever you say on that recording might not be used to put you in jail, but thats small comfort if your boss fires you, you lose your license, or whatever.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, regardless of how 'cool' the unearthed footage is, regardless of how 'cool' the leaked footage is.

How you feel about it is irrelevant. I'd be against intimate photos leaked to the internet, but I'm also against being eaten alive by grizzly bears. If I'm in an Alaska wilderness and a Grizzly grabs me, what can I do about it? Tell him that I disagree with being eaten?

The privacy myth is not something you can reason with, it is a grizzly bear. You can't wish it away or argue that its wrong, all you can do is try to avoid the bear, bring bear mace, or a gun, or whatever else you can think of to avoid being eaten by bears.

So long as the illicitly recording party is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[alnorth]

So long as the illicitly recording party is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm fine with that. Its honestly probably not going to be much of a punishment though, because they usually have no money and will go BK on you if you sue, and if it is a criminal offense in your state then I can't imagine there's much jail time involved in most states, probably none.

edit: just looked up California's 2-party consent law. The penalty in that state as an example is just $5,000 or 3 times damages, whichever is greater. No jail. In most states it is not illegal at all if one party consents (the recorder, obviously)

[mikey23545]

If you wish to have a conversation in your own home about a sensitive topic, then have all parties involved disrobe, and go to the bathroom. Turn on a radio and begin to whisper to each other...

Oh, and if you don't like this state of affairs, you are just a whiner, just like all those nancy-girls who complain about murder, rape, poverty or other social injustices... /alnorth

[mikey23545]

What exactly is your solution to that problem and how does it get remedied without the government intervening on your behalf to protect you from a statement that you actually made and don't want to own up to.

(Using "you" figuratively here, not saying that this has been an issue for you)

Oh, so now I'm not allowed to point out a problem unless I have a solution to it?

Guess we all better bow out of most discussions on this board if that is a qualifier...

[BlackHelicopters]

Only sex tapes should be made public.

[Titty Meat]

Only sex tapes should be made public.

Unless its the Gene Simmons one. That should have stayed private.

[-King-]

If you wish to have a conversation in your own home about a sensitive topic, then have all parties involved disrobe, and go to the bathroom. Turn on a radio and begin to whisper to each other...

Oh, and if you don't like this state of affairs, you are just a whiner, just like all those nancy-girls who complain about murder, rape, poverty or other social injustices... /alnorth
Wtf?
Posted via Mobile Device

[patteeu]

I think people should be able to record any conversation they're involved in without the consent of anyone else and I think they should disclose anything they want as long as they don't do so in a deceitful way (e.g. edit the tape to make it sound like a person is saying something other than what they actually said).

[Chief Gump]

The people asking what can you do about it and the answer is the people doing the recording and releasing should also have the anger of the public on them as well.

[Titty Meat]

I think people should be able to record any conversation they're involved in without the consent of anyone else and I think they should disclose anything they want as long as they don't do so in a deceitful way (e.g. edit the tape to make it sound like a person is saying something other than what they actually said).

So I can post those pm's of us cybering?

[patteeu]

So I can post those pm's of us cybering?

Yes, of course.

[WhiteWhale]

So even in your own home you should be afraid to speak your mind? And keep in mind I'm not talking about only racist comments, or only about NBA owners, but all of us, about any matter...You really find this acceptable?!?!!?

Oh, let me guess..."You'll just have to get used to it"...

What a chilling, chilling world you envision...

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/835/3o7t.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/n73o7tj)

What the hell are you bringing big brother up for?

If anything, you should be railing against TECHNOLOGY. That's what makes this possible. Go Walden if you dislike it because there's not much you can do about technology. People can record both your voice and your actions now! Do you think all of these women are ecstatic when their ex boyfriends post dirty picture of them? Technology sucks sometimes, but you either deal with it or go isolationist on everyone.

For the record I feel anyone recording another person without their consent should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I think what you are talking about there Orson is probably best saved for a topic that it is relevant in.

[patteeu]

For the record I feel anyone recording another person without their consent should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What do you think the the law should be? Do you agree with the minority view that both parties must consent or should the majority view that only one consent is required prevail?

[planetdoc]

What do you think the the law should be? Do you agree with the minority view that both parties must consent or should the majority view that only one consent is required prevail?

I think there is no expectation of privacy in public, and thus no consent is required other than recording in a lewd manner (upskirt photography/ x-ray technology, etc where there is an expectation of privacy).

That 1 party consent is ok for private recordings if all parties are notified that they are being recorded prior to being recorded (but them giving consent is not required).

[alnorth]

Wtf?
Posted via Mobile Device

hah, wow. I agree, wtf.

I put that guy on ignore long ago, and don't remember why. Seems like it was the right decision from what little I'm seeing in the quotes.

[patteeu]

I think there is no expectation of privacy in public, and thus no consent is required other than recording in a lewd manner (upskirt photography/ x-ray technology, etc where there is an expectation of privacy).

Agree.

That 1 party consent is ok for private recordings if all parties are notified that they are being recorded prior to being recorded (but them giving consent is not required).

I take it that this is how you think it should be, which really puts you a small step away from the 2 party consent view, AFAICT. I don't think explicit notification should be required.

[alnorth]

What do you think the the law should be? Do you agree with the minority view that both parties must consent or should the majority view that only one consent is required prevail?

That doesn't really even matter much in the big picture though. You still have to assume that privacy is a myth, someone who hates you might record you, and act accordingly because everyone has those cell phones that can upload to youtube in seconds. Suing someone won't get those pictures/audio/video/whatever off the internet if it went even a little viral.

[patteeu]

That doesn't really even matter much in the big picture though. You still have to assume that privacy is a myth, someone who hates you might record you, and act accordingly because everyone has those cell phones that can upload to youtube in seconds. Suing someone won't get those pictures/audio/video/whatever off the internet if it went even a little viral.

I agree. I just asked the question because WhiteWhale said something about prosecuting a person to the fullest extent of the law which I took to mean that he's in favor of the minority view but which might just mean that he's a law and order guy who wants the laws followed whatever they are.

[alnorth]

I agree. I just asked the question because WhiteWhale said something about prosecuting a person to the fullest extent of the law which I took to mean that he's in favor of the minority view but which might just mean that he's a law and order guy who wants the laws followed whatever they are.

Ahhh, I'm in favor of 2-party consent laws, but I'm not sure how strongly I feel about it. If I had to write a national law, I think I'd do something like California where its a civil issue and you can sue for money, but I'm not going to throw someone in jail for recording a conversation that they are a part of.

[DJJasonp]

I think people should be able to record any conversation they're involved in without the consent of anyone else and I think they should disclose anything they want as long as they don't do so in a deceitful way (e.g. edit the tape to make it sound like a person is saying something other than what they actually said).

I think this is a really slippery slope. Imagine telling your friends how you probably drove home intoxicated.....or got away with driving 100mph on the highway to make it to work on time.

That conversation is recorded.....turned in to the authorities, and you get a ticket/fine in the mail (or worse).

We are heading towards a society where one....ONE....mistake can cost you your normal life as you know it. And, other than keeping your mouth shut, you as an individual have zero control over.

[kcxiv]

Against it, but i also understand that once you hear it you cant unhear it.

[patteeu]

I think this is a really slippery slope. Imagine telling your friends how you probably drove home intoxicated.....or got away with driving 100mph on the highway to make it to work on time.

That conversation is recorded.....turned in to the authorities, and you get a ticket/fine in the mail (or worse).

We are heading towards a society where one....ONE....mistake can cost you your normal life as you know it. And, other than keeping your mouth shut, you as an individual have zero control over.

Well, you wouldn't get a ticket in that case, but I understand your point. I can envision a person recording all of their phone conversations with their spouse in order to build up evidence for a surprise divorce and that sort of thing. But there's also another side to the story. What about the person who gets lied to or harassed on the phone by someone who can now prove it because he/she was recording the conversation?

[TLO]

I"m consfused. I thought Dick Bull started this thread????

[J Diddy]

I"m consfused. I thought Dick Bull started this thread????

I only start prayer threads and q of kkk granddragon assassins who get busted with black male prostitutes.

[MahiMike]

If you wish to have a conversation in your own home about a sensitive topic, then have all parties involved disrobe, and go to the bathroom. Turn on a radio and begin to whisper to each other...

Oh, and if you don't like this state of affairs, you are just a whiner, just like all those nancy-girls who complain about murder, rape, poverty or other social injustices... /alnorth

So the Soviets have more freedom than us now?