Hacker News Reader

Comment by atoav | Hacker News Reader

Just a side note: Recording people without their consent might be illegal in certain places.

And even if it's not, a cop will claim it is.

It's long been settled that recording police in Germany is totally fine, but they keep claiming that once you have an audio track, it's recording "the spoken private word" which has special protection. Doesn't matter they're there in an official capacity, and also doesn't matter if you don't record audio. They'll just assume you are.

Even the press get targeted.

https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/2020/10/02/reportit-poli...

Even in the US, my understanding with respect to audio specifically is that there are one party consent locales and two party consent locales. So audio can actually be more restrictive than video.

ADDED: And it looks like there’s no out of the box way with the default iPhone camera app to record video without audio.

US Federal is 1-party and some states are 2-party. This is why you get the "this phone call may be recorded for quality assurance" notifications—because you have now been informed as the second party.

But the above is for private conversations. If the interaction is in a public area, then there isn't an expectation of privacy, so the number of parties informed is moot, but this has been the subject of legal disputes notably when it comes to police being recorded. If anything it would seem like government representatives would have less expectations of privacy when conducting official business, but it's been argued.

They keep claiming it because they don’t want to be recorded. It’s still legal to do it. Police are allowed to lie to you after all.

Well, obviously. But it is very rare that you will get your theoretical rights when your legal opponent is a cop. One of the cases linked in the article literally had a camera running when a cop assaulted them[1], and yet they got charged for assult and resisting arrest first, dragged through court for a year while the prosecutors office refused to prosecute the police offer due to "lack of public interest, slim chance of guilty verdict and low degree of guilt". They look out for each other.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcmgkWXa9A#t=1m40s

Genuine question: is it the act of recording that is illegal or is it the publishing of recorded material where this applies?

In the US, it probably doesn’t matter in general. My understanding is at least some countries in Europe have restrictions about posting photos (and presumably video) without the subject’s permission. Something that is of course ignored probably 100s of thousands of times per day.

In France, if you post a image of a minor (less than 18) without express permission, you're in a world of trouble. It's automatic win in a lawsuit, no mater how justified you think you are.

I wonder how many iconic photographs including by the likes of Henri-Cartier Bresson would fail that test.

I assume there also have to be carveouts for newspaper/magazine editorial.

At least in Germany this is about the act of recording and the act of publishing. But in reality if you are not publishing, most recordings will never be noticed by the people on the pictures.

Also there are limitations, e.g. implicit consent or "panoramic freedom" (when the people on the picture are not recognizable).

Depends on country and the exact types of "record" and "publish".

I've always wondered, if you start recording to capture evidence of some crime against you, can you not submit that as evidence to defend yourself in court?

I'd probably live with the risk then.

In general in the US, video recordings in a public place are legal. (Audio is a bit more complicated depending on local law ADDED but in public it should generally be OK.)

Depend of the country, but public places can be filmed without consent, except if it record a specific person.

About half the states in the usa the act Audio recording is privliged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com