Hacker News Reader

Comment by duxup | Hacker News Reader

This smells like a pickle that SCOTUS will need to address.

Just running it through my head and I feel like I could argue it in every direction… and the details of the case here make for some interesting wrinkles and a lot of second order type effects that could occur without some good guidance here.

View on HN

In general, SCOTUS wouldn't tend to pick this up unless another circuit has ruled the other way (in which case, yeah, they generally would to prevent unequal application of the law in different states).

The simple approach is to default to single party consent but allow explicit nonconsent. In other words nobody can be recorded without their knowledge, but if they’re informed a recording is being made then remaining in the conversation is consent.

Strongly disagree. There are so many situations in which abusive people (employers, romantic partners, politicians) need to be caught unaware or they won't be caught at all.

Obviously there are lines to be drawn when we are talking about the government recording citizens. Warrants are an important check on power for this. But any individual should be able to record (mostly) anything. At the very least, it can save you money when a customer service rep claims they never said something. At most, it can keep you out of prison.

In many cases, the act of recording is itself an abusive action. Privacy is valuable, desirable, and the freedom to converse knowing there isn’t a recording running is itself the freedom to speak without all conversations being subject to chilling effects. Society is not improved by the threat that every ephemeral conversation is potentially being collected for later use, abuse, and scrutiny.

This therefore to me seems like a thinly-veiled variant on “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”. A world of constant recording is not a better one.

The best part about the customer-service scenario is that the vast majority now say "this call may be recorded..."

Fine. I'm recording it!

But I worry about everyone's ring doorbells spying on all the neighbors.

But that’s not one-party consent. The ring cameras aren’t a party.

Just give the SCOTUS a bit more time.

By walking or standing in view of this doorbell, you agree to the following terms...

Corporations are people, so Amazon is a person, and if you invite Amazon into your home then they can record a conversation heard across the fence into someone else's yard.

That isn’t single party consent it is all party consent. Single party consent is anyone in the conversation may record without telling others about it. Or a third party may record with the approval of any one who is in the conversation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com