Hacker News Reader

Comment by nix23 | Hacker News Reader

>Some places only require one party (you the recorder) to consent

Some places...nord Korea? You the recorder have to consent?? I consent to myself that i record others without their knowledge?

View on HN

Laws around recording typically also cover cases where an outside person, who isn't a party in the conversation, is recording. The idea is that there are three possibilities: all parties in the conversation consent to recording, one of the parties consents (almost certainly the person who wants the recording), and none of the parties consent (ie, someone is spying on the conversation). One-party consent is legal in a variety of countries and regions of countries, while zero-party consent is illegal pretty much everywhere I know.

That's not what he said...if everyone consent that's called a interview.

Tell me what I said.

> Some places only require one party (you the recorder) to consent.

That's whats you said, and it's not true, without consent from at least one recorded or being in a situation where recording is normal (tv etc) it's pretty much everywhere illegal.

And i wrote 'Most Country's' which is a hint that there is some 'Some others'. There is even a Country where singing under the shower is forbidden, in MOST others...it's not.

Most of Australia, for example.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-legal-to...

The majority of the states in the US have one-party consent too, I believe.

Yep. Here's a list of one-party recording consent states from [1]:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana*, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

[1] https://recordinglaw.com/united-states-recording-laws/one-pa...

Yeah but the consent of ONE of the recorded...not the recorder itself right?

Consent by one party of the conversation. If you initiate a recording of a conversation, you can reasonably have consented to you, yourself, recording the conversation.

Note that I believe (and, IANAL) that if at least one party to the conversation resides in a "two-party consent" jurisdiction, you will need the consent from all such parties.

Sounds a bit more complicated then what you think it is:

>But the reality is that it is normally against the law to record a phone call without the other person’s consent.

>In fact, ‘covertly’ (secretly) using a listening device such as a mobile phone or digital recorder and publishing or otherwise distributing that material can amount to a criminal offence.

Recording private conversations:

>The laws only apply to ‘private conversations’, which is one where the parties may reasonably assume that they don’t want to be overheard by others.

>One of the exceptions to the prohibition against recording and/or publishing or distributing records of private conversations is where police officers have obtained what’s known as a ‘surveillance device warrant’ – also known as a ‘wire tap’ – which allows for the recorded material to be used for investigations and tendered in court provided, of course, that the material is relevant to the proceedings at hand.

Between jurisdictions:

>It is legal in all jurisdictions to record a phone call if ALL PARTIES to the phone call consent.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-it-legal-to...

But hey if your a Police Officer working on a case your are correct, you don't need the Consent of the other person ;)

No, it's just as simple as I think it is.

Vic, Qld, NSW, SA, Tas, all OK. That's most of Aus.

Oregon.

Oregon...Australia...that says everything...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com