Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkharderdev | Hacker News Reader

How does this work in two-party consent states. IANAL but as I understand it, you need to permission to record someone in California.

As an aside, I don't consider myself a particularly paranoid person (relative to the median HN commenter, I'm probably still in the 95th percentile of paranoid-ness in the general population), but I couldn't imagine ever wearing a device that records my entire life and uploads it to Meta of all companies....

View on HN

That code (penal code 632) has a carve out for when there is a “reasonable expectation” of the location being in public so outside of private spaces it doesn’t apply.

The internet is littered with a*holes with cameras testing that carve out and members of the public who don’t know who get into fights. Best to not be interesting in public unless you’re okay with being filmed I guess.

I think it is reasonable to expect that a recording device is obvious to the person being recorded.

Reasonable maybe, but not required by the current laws and precedent that allow for recording in public.

I 'member Surveillance Camera Man[1]

[1]https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/

In a workplace, signs proclaiming “recording devices are in use” relate to implied consent. I think maybe things are different in workplace bathrooms?

Imagine coming out of the bathroom stall and seeing somebody in the bathroom wearing smart glasses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com