There have been states trying to ban it
They are trying to, but these laws will likely fail to be constitutional because so far they are completely arbitrary and do not respect freedom of press.
> That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image.
Approximately the same states are all-party consent for video recording any place that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, reasonable expectation of privacy is different between audio of a conversation, and video.
But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.
One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters.
I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
That isn't just magic. The longer a memory stays in your head, and the more times it's called up, the more likely that recollection is to be changed by your own brain. A written account of events shortly after they occur is a good way to protect against future damage to the memory.
It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
> It doesn't mean that what's written is accurate to start with, we know how little eye witnesses and even our own senses can be trusted, but it's probably going to be a lot better than what we think happened days/weeks/years later.
This is great if you assume everyone is always telling the truth to the best of their ability, but that's not such a great assumption in court. Giving greater weight to notes mostly means that someone who plans to screw you over benefits from automatic victories against people who didn't plan not to get screwed.
I do think that people should be able to record events that occur on their own properly, and even their own phone calls without consent of another person, but I worry about the implications of saying that our ability to remember events and the ability to log data are basically the same. Feels like a loophole that a lot of evil people and companies would happily jump through.
Generally though, I don't really see an ethical problem with data collected strictly for an individual's personal use and I guess in theory we could have two party consent laws that acknowledge that but still offer some protections.
I'm not sure to word conservative applies. In the US you are just as likely to get a liberal judge as a conservative one in a local trial court. Most cases are never appealed, at the state level, it depends on the state if it's conservative/liberal, and at the Federal level we have judges appointed by both conservative, moderate and liberal presidents.
> It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.
It can, however make violence expensive. We're seeing case after case cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars for civil rights violations and excessive force. The great equalizer has been cameras.