Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfdietz | Hacker News Reader

I'm against laws prohibiting recording without consent. Recording is a way for the weak to defend themselves against the powerful. If someone calls me, or comes up to talk to me, I should be able to document electronically whatever is said to me.

View on HN

I agree with you. But that’s called one party consent and this isn’t that.

This is a ban on zero party consent, where the manufacturer of a device records remotely without proper notification. That’s another thing entirely.

Illinois already required two party consent. What would this law have blocked that isn’t already illegal?

It would’ve allowed you to file complaints with the AG. But Google and Microsoft and Amazon thought that’ll jus lead to too many class action lawsuits lol

I guess they’re listening in then

Surely you can do that anyway? Usually you’re allowed to report suspected crimes.

Wouldn't that just degenerate to one party consent with the manufacturer as the consenting party?

I'm perfectly fine with a ban on companies and institutions recording individuals. They are very rarely, if ever, the 'weak'.

What if they are journalists? That's the slippery slope here.

you must understand that authority will selectively use evidence as well. Especially considering deepfakes, I don't see a path towards the use of non-approved devices with secure digital evidence possession chains as evidence in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com