What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation












18















I asked this question in the law site, but I was told it has more to do with politics (same question in the law site).



Let's assume A and B have a discussion about a business deal and A will record the conversation without B's knowledge. Later on, they have a disagreement that takes them to court. Let's also assume that the recording is long enough to be unambiguous and can't be taken out of context.



In some states, B should consent to the recording but I fail to understand the motivation behind that law:




  • A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.

  • If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.

  • One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.

  • A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.


I can't understand the motivation of 2 consents at all. Can someone explain it to me?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • I'm not sure what tag to add to this, I think only the law tag doesn't cover it but I'm not sure what other tags fit. If you want to add another tag, please feel free to add a comment.

    – JJJ
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    It's related to illegal eavesdropping or wiretapping. Can you elaborate on what the relevant wiki page doesn't cover well enough?

    – Denis de Bernardy
    12 hours ago








  • 1





    Stopping stuff from being taken out of context and/or proving it wasn't taken out of context is probably the entire point of the law, so your assumption about the recording being unambiguous is a hard one to make. "Why aren't guns allowed on planes? Let's assume they won't be used for hijacking it".

    – Giter
    10 hours ago






  • 1





    @Thomas You seem to be asking from a purely "How will it help the legal system" point of view, but you need to consider non-legal abuses of recordings. They could be used for blackmail or to embarrass or humiliate someone, and there are privacy considerations. I once associated with someone who recorded everything; he occasionally got out humorous, embarrassing recordings to poke fun at people, often using quotes out of context. I refused to associate with the person after that, as I should not have to put up with that nonsense. You need to consider more than just the court ramifications.

    – Aaron
    4 hours ago











  • @Aaron, point taken; I didn't really think out of the legal context.

    – Thomas
    4 hours ago
















18















I asked this question in the law site, but I was told it has more to do with politics (same question in the law site).



Let's assume A and B have a discussion about a business deal and A will record the conversation without B's knowledge. Later on, they have a disagreement that takes them to court. Let's also assume that the recording is long enough to be unambiguous and can't be taken out of context.



In some states, B should consent to the recording but I fail to understand the motivation behind that law:




  • A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.

  • If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.

  • One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.

  • A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.


I can't understand the motivation of 2 consents at all. Can someone explain it to me?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • I'm not sure what tag to add to this, I think only the law tag doesn't cover it but I'm not sure what other tags fit. If you want to add another tag, please feel free to add a comment.

    – JJJ
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    It's related to illegal eavesdropping or wiretapping. Can you elaborate on what the relevant wiki page doesn't cover well enough?

    – Denis de Bernardy
    12 hours ago








  • 1





    Stopping stuff from being taken out of context and/or proving it wasn't taken out of context is probably the entire point of the law, so your assumption about the recording being unambiguous is a hard one to make. "Why aren't guns allowed on planes? Let's assume they won't be used for hijacking it".

    – Giter
    10 hours ago






  • 1





    @Thomas You seem to be asking from a purely "How will it help the legal system" point of view, but you need to consider non-legal abuses of recordings. They could be used for blackmail or to embarrass or humiliate someone, and there are privacy considerations. I once associated with someone who recorded everything; he occasionally got out humorous, embarrassing recordings to poke fun at people, often using quotes out of context. I refused to associate with the person after that, as I should not have to put up with that nonsense. You need to consider more than just the court ramifications.

    – Aaron
    4 hours ago











  • @Aaron, point taken; I didn't really think out of the legal context.

    – Thomas
    4 hours ago














18












18








18


1






I asked this question in the law site, but I was told it has more to do with politics (same question in the law site).



Let's assume A and B have a discussion about a business deal and A will record the conversation without B's knowledge. Later on, they have a disagreement that takes them to court. Let's also assume that the recording is long enough to be unambiguous and can't be taken out of context.



In some states, B should consent to the recording but I fail to understand the motivation behind that law:




  • A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.

  • If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.

  • One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.

  • A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.


I can't understand the motivation of 2 consents at all. Can someone explain it to me?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I asked this question in the law site, but I was told it has more to do with politics (same question in the law site).



Let's assume A and B have a discussion about a business deal and A will record the conversation without B's knowledge. Later on, they have a disagreement that takes them to court. Let's also assume that the recording is long enough to be unambiguous and can't be taken out of context.



In some states, B should consent to the recording but I fail to understand the motivation behind that law:




  • A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.

  • If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.

  • One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.

  • A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.


I can't understand the motivation of 2 consents at all. Can someone explain it to me?







law






share|improve this question









New contributor




Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 12 hours ago









JJJ

6,22922455




6,22922455






New contributor




Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 12 hours ago









ThomasThomas

1914




1914




New contributor




Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Thomas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • I'm not sure what tag to add to this, I think only the law tag doesn't cover it but I'm not sure what other tags fit. If you want to add another tag, please feel free to add a comment.

    – JJJ
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    It's related to illegal eavesdropping or wiretapping. Can you elaborate on what the relevant wiki page doesn't cover well enough?

    – Denis de Bernardy
    12 hours ago








  • 1





    Stopping stuff from being taken out of context and/or proving it wasn't taken out of context is probably the entire point of the law, so your assumption about the recording being unambiguous is a hard one to make. "Why aren't guns allowed on planes? Let's assume they won't be used for hijacking it".

    – Giter
    10 hours ago






  • 1





    @Thomas You seem to be asking from a purely "How will it help the legal system" point of view, but you need to consider non-legal abuses of recordings. They could be used for blackmail or to embarrass or humiliate someone, and there are privacy considerations. I once associated with someone who recorded everything; he occasionally got out humorous, embarrassing recordings to poke fun at people, often using quotes out of context. I refused to associate with the person after that, as I should not have to put up with that nonsense. You need to consider more than just the court ramifications.

    – Aaron
    4 hours ago











  • @Aaron, point taken; I didn't really think out of the legal context.

    – Thomas
    4 hours ago



















  • I'm not sure what tag to add to this, I think only the law tag doesn't cover it but I'm not sure what other tags fit. If you want to add another tag, please feel free to add a comment.

    – JJJ
    12 hours ago






  • 2





    It's related to illegal eavesdropping or wiretapping. Can you elaborate on what the relevant wiki page doesn't cover well enough?

    – Denis de Bernardy
    12 hours ago








  • 1





    Stopping stuff from being taken out of context and/or proving it wasn't taken out of context is probably the entire point of the law, so your assumption about the recording being unambiguous is a hard one to make. "Why aren't guns allowed on planes? Let's assume they won't be used for hijacking it".

    – Giter
    10 hours ago






  • 1





    @Thomas You seem to be asking from a purely "How will it help the legal system" point of view, but you need to consider non-legal abuses of recordings. They could be used for blackmail or to embarrass or humiliate someone, and there are privacy considerations. I once associated with someone who recorded everything; he occasionally got out humorous, embarrassing recordings to poke fun at people, often using quotes out of context. I refused to associate with the person after that, as I should not have to put up with that nonsense. You need to consider more than just the court ramifications.

    – Aaron
    4 hours ago











  • @Aaron, point taken; I didn't really think out of the legal context.

    – Thomas
    4 hours ago

















I'm not sure what tag to add to this, I think only the law tag doesn't cover it but I'm not sure what other tags fit. If you want to add another tag, please feel free to add a comment.

– JJJ
12 hours ago





I'm not sure what tag to add to this, I think only the law tag doesn't cover it but I'm not sure what other tags fit. If you want to add another tag, please feel free to add a comment.

– JJJ
12 hours ago




2




2





It's related to illegal eavesdropping or wiretapping. Can you elaborate on what the relevant wiki page doesn't cover well enough?

– Denis de Bernardy
12 hours ago







It's related to illegal eavesdropping or wiretapping. Can you elaborate on what the relevant wiki page doesn't cover well enough?

– Denis de Bernardy
12 hours ago






1




1





Stopping stuff from being taken out of context and/or proving it wasn't taken out of context is probably the entire point of the law, so your assumption about the recording being unambiguous is a hard one to make. "Why aren't guns allowed on planes? Let's assume they won't be used for hijacking it".

– Giter
10 hours ago





Stopping stuff from being taken out of context and/or proving it wasn't taken out of context is probably the entire point of the law, so your assumption about the recording being unambiguous is a hard one to make. "Why aren't guns allowed on planes? Let's assume they won't be used for hijacking it".

– Giter
10 hours ago




1




1





@Thomas You seem to be asking from a purely "How will it help the legal system" point of view, but you need to consider non-legal abuses of recordings. They could be used for blackmail or to embarrass or humiliate someone, and there are privacy considerations. I once associated with someone who recorded everything; he occasionally got out humorous, embarrassing recordings to poke fun at people, often using quotes out of context. I refused to associate with the person after that, as I should not have to put up with that nonsense. You need to consider more than just the court ramifications.

– Aaron
4 hours ago





@Thomas You seem to be asking from a purely "How will it help the legal system" point of view, but you need to consider non-legal abuses of recordings. They could be used for blackmail or to embarrass or humiliate someone, and there are privacy considerations. I once associated with someone who recorded everything; he occasionally got out humorous, embarrassing recordings to poke fun at people, often using quotes out of context. I refused to associate with the person after that, as I should not have to put up with that nonsense. You need to consider more than just the court ramifications.

– Aaron
4 hours ago













@Aaron, point taken; I didn't really think out of the legal context.

– Thomas
4 hours ago





@Aaron, point taken; I didn't really think out of the legal context.

– Thomas
4 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















11














If I know you are recording me, I may speak differently and use clearer language. If I don't, I may be more likely to use ambiguous language that can be taken out of context. Consider the case of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Their goal is to surreptitiously record people doing things some people may think are bad and discredit them for political purposes. As it turns out, selective editing of the recordings caused a massive uproar on a number of issues when in fact the context surrounding the recorded exchanges was sometimes hotly disputed after editing, and in some cases demonstrably false.



Numerous undercover investigations by would-be reporters at factory farms attempted to highlight the conditions of animals at those places, inspiring a wave of Ag-gag laws in some states and other anti-whistleblower legislation. In some cases they were successful at being truthful and highlighting abuse, in others they were only successful at hurting their cause since legislators in those areas weren't convinced of the recordings' veracity given how they were obtained.



Having two-party consent to record interactions means everyone knows a recording exists. If I know a recording exists of me, I would be more likely to request a full unedited copy so that I may protect myself from people who only wish to further their own agenda regardless of what I actually say. If someone has to lie or be deceitful in order to obtain a recording, how can viewers trust that what they see or hear is the full context? A single surreptitious recording can be used to imply a large scale conspiracy and discredit an entire organization, when in reality there could just be a single bad actor.





Note - this issue is distinct and separate from so-called "ambush journalism", since generally in those cases large lumbering cameramen are a giveaway that the target is being recorded.






share|improve this answer
























  • This doesn't really make sense when one party has declared recording, even if one party hasn't consented to it. They will know they have been recorded. Even when people know they are being recorded they can be taken out of context.

    – opa
    8 hours ago








  • 2





    @opa See the note at the bottom. It is a completely different issue when the recording is done in full view vs when it's done surreptitiously. Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded. I'm not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though.

    – Jeff Lambert
    8 hours ago











  • "Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded." Is not noted in your post AFAICS? and the fact that "[you are] not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though." means implicit consent here has no legal basis right?, and then we circle back around to how this is a justification of these laws.

    – opa
    8 hours ago






  • 4





    A particularly good example involving Project Veritas is a situation in which an ACORN employee 'played along' with a scam that O' Keefe purported to run, and then called the police after O' Keefe left. The viewer of O' Keefe's footage may take the ACORN employee at face value and assume he was facilitating the scam. It turns out that hidden recordings can be used to make honest citizens look like accessories to fraud. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

    – John
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    @opa I think I see where you're coming from now, but my experience can only inform me generally when it comes to issues of law. If you want an exact answer with respect to what limitations state laws have regarding implied two party consent I can only suggest asking about it at Law.SE, I can only answer the question here on Politics to the best of my ability. I can say that the general belief is that nobody can force you to say anything, and if you say something after being told you're being recorded that you regret, I don't think you'll get much sympathy.

    – Jeff Lambert
    4 hours ago



















11














To pick a two-party-consent jurisdiction at random, let us consider California, USA.



In 1967, the California Legislature enacted a broad, protective invasion-of-privacy statute in response to what it viewed as a serious and increasing threat to
the confidentiality of private communications resulting from then recent advances
in science and technology that had led to the development of new devices and
techniques for eavesdropping upon and recording such private communications.



This was done by means of Assembly Bill 860, which became Penal Code §§ 630-637.2. In a statement by Assemblyman Jesse Marvin "Big Daddy" Unruh, before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the bill was so described:




The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the
free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free
and civilized society. The Legislature by this chapter intends to
protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.




This would suggest that the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation is a concern for privacy.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    Your example, which is 99% of your answer, does not seem to apply to this Q&A about 2-party consent since it is about eavesdropping. Unless there is something in the legalese that suggests otherwise, I don't see how you could call 1-party consent eavesdropping. Eavesdropping would be more 0-party consent, no?

    – Aaron
    4 hours ago



















1














Why would you make a business deal with a person who doesn't consent to it being recorded ?



The issue is not a business deal where you have different takes on what the agreement actually was (and I would strongly suspect that a recording of the conversation would be permissable in court).

The Issue is private conversations that could be a problem in a different way. Like an access hollywood tape as an example (note that there was consent here, obviously, and both of them were wearing a microphone. I just used the incident as an example.).






share|improve this answer
























  • What is the point of your example, if they had consented?

    – Azor Ahai
    4 hours ago











  • You realize that there's no example where they didn't, for legal reasons. But the point was, obviously, that the things that were said in the tape are the kinds of things the law is supposed to protect you from coming out.

    – xyious
    4 hours ago











  • The point wasn't "obvious" if I had to ask.

    – Azor Ahai
    4 hours ago



















0














I think you're starting from wrong assumption:




A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.




One's memory is not equivalent to a record. Your memory is a proof only to you, while a record is a proof you can use to convince others.




If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.




The act of observing changes the state of the system being observed. That's not only true for quantum physics but for people as well. A will behave differently: be more reserved and defensive knowing that the conversation is recorded. B will talk more freely and openly. By recording that A knows but B doesn't, the conversation is already biased, because A is talking things that will sound good on tape in court, while B is talking things that sound good in conversation. We are imperfect beings, we don't say things that are true. It can be summed up as: we say things that we imagine the other side wants to hear. With one-side recording, B is talking to A, but A is talking to the future judge (or whoever they plan to produce this record to). It's unavoidable that the judge will gravitate towards A.




One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.




Now this part puts A at clear advantage. It's not about who remembers it better, it's about who can convince the judge they're right. If A is right, they go to the court and produce the recording. If A relistens the recording and realizes they're wrong - they back down and hide the record. If be goes to the court, court has no way of forcing A to produce the record (your "ultimate source of truth") because nobody knows it exists.




A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.




That's not any disadvantage. You're stretching it too far. Both A and B represent their recollection about what happened. The fact that A knows for sure their recollection is closer to the truth than B's is annoying and frustrating but that's not a disadvantage. It's B who's at disadvantage, as human memory is imperfect and we can't tell facts from fiction. Or you can say that it's the truth (if it even exists) is at disadvantage.



A can always choose: the not-really-unbiased recording, or human memory/imagination. It's like playing in casino with 2 dice and you get to pick which one everybody gets to honor after the throw. That's huge.






share|improve this answer































    0














    This answer is about the differences between mutual notification and mutual consent. Other answers have already pointed out that people behave differently when they know they are being recorded -- which would happen in either case.



    Mutual consent leaves little ambiguity that both parties know the conversation is being recorded. One party must offer to make a recording, and the other party must actively accept.



    In contrast, when the standard is merely mutual notification, it is easy to dispute that adequate notice was not given. What is adequate language for such a notice? What if the other party could not hear or does not understand the notice? Do nonverbal actions such as showing recording equipment qualify as notice? Because no action is required by the second party, there is a great deal of ambiguity whether notice was adequately given. In some cases, the second party could simply deny after the fact that notice was given.



    The standard of mutual consent therefore reduces disputes between the parties that notice was given.






    share|improve this answer
























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "475"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Thomas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40414%2fwhat-is-the-motivation-for-a-law-requiring-2-parties-to-consent-for-recording-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      11














      If I know you are recording me, I may speak differently and use clearer language. If I don't, I may be more likely to use ambiguous language that can be taken out of context. Consider the case of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Their goal is to surreptitiously record people doing things some people may think are bad and discredit them for political purposes. As it turns out, selective editing of the recordings caused a massive uproar on a number of issues when in fact the context surrounding the recorded exchanges was sometimes hotly disputed after editing, and in some cases demonstrably false.



      Numerous undercover investigations by would-be reporters at factory farms attempted to highlight the conditions of animals at those places, inspiring a wave of Ag-gag laws in some states and other anti-whistleblower legislation. In some cases they were successful at being truthful and highlighting abuse, in others they were only successful at hurting their cause since legislators in those areas weren't convinced of the recordings' veracity given how they were obtained.



      Having two-party consent to record interactions means everyone knows a recording exists. If I know a recording exists of me, I would be more likely to request a full unedited copy so that I may protect myself from people who only wish to further their own agenda regardless of what I actually say. If someone has to lie or be deceitful in order to obtain a recording, how can viewers trust that what they see or hear is the full context? A single surreptitious recording can be used to imply a large scale conspiracy and discredit an entire organization, when in reality there could just be a single bad actor.





      Note - this issue is distinct and separate from so-called "ambush journalism", since generally in those cases large lumbering cameramen are a giveaway that the target is being recorded.






      share|improve this answer
























      • This doesn't really make sense when one party has declared recording, even if one party hasn't consented to it. They will know they have been recorded. Even when people know they are being recorded they can be taken out of context.

        – opa
        8 hours ago








      • 2





        @opa See the note at the bottom. It is a completely different issue when the recording is done in full view vs when it's done surreptitiously. Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded. I'm not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though.

        – Jeff Lambert
        8 hours ago











      • "Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded." Is not noted in your post AFAICS? and the fact that "[you are] not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though." means implicit consent here has no legal basis right?, and then we circle back around to how this is a justification of these laws.

        – opa
        8 hours ago






      • 4





        A particularly good example involving Project Veritas is a situation in which an ACORN employee 'played along' with a scam that O' Keefe purported to run, and then called the police after O' Keefe left. The viewer of O' Keefe's footage may take the ACORN employee at face value and assume he was facilitating the scam. It turns out that hidden recordings can be used to make honest citizens look like accessories to fraud. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

        – John
        7 hours ago






      • 1





        @opa I think I see where you're coming from now, but my experience can only inform me generally when it comes to issues of law. If you want an exact answer with respect to what limitations state laws have regarding implied two party consent I can only suggest asking about it at Law.SE, I can only answer the question here on Politics to the best of my ability. I can say that the general belief is that nobody can force you to say anything, and if you say something after being told you're being recorded that you regret, I don't think you'll get much sympathy.

        – Jeff Lambert
        4 hours ago
















      11














      If I know you are recording me, I may speak differently and use clearer language. If I don't, I may be more likely to use ambiguous language that can be taken out of context. Consider the case of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Their goal is to surreptitiously record people doing things some people may think are bad and discredit them for political purposes. As it turns out, selective editing of the recordings caused a massive uproar on a number of issues when in fact the context surrounding the recorded exchanges was sometimes hotly disputed after editing, and in some cases demonstrably false.



      Numerous undercover investigations by would-be reporters at factory farms attempted to highlight the conditions of animals at those places, inspiring a wave of Ag-gag laws in some states and other anti-whistleblower legislation. In some cases they were successful at being truthful and highlighting abuse, in others they were only successful at hurting their cause since legislators in those areas weren't convinced of the recordings' veracity given how they were obtained.



      Having two-party consent to record interactions means everyone knows a recording exists. If I know a recording exists of me, I would be more likely to request a full unedited copy so that I may protect myself from people who only wish to further their own agenda regardless of what I actually say. If someone has to lie or be deceitful in order to obtain a recording, how can viewers trust that what they see or hear is the full context? A single surreptitious recording can be used to imply a large scale conspiracy and discredit an entire organization, when in reality there could just be a single bad actor.





      Note - this issue is distinct and separate from so-called "ambush journalism", since generally in those cases large lumbering cameramen are a giveaway that the target is being recorded.






      share|improve this answer
























      • This doesn't really make sense when one party has declared recording, even if one party hasn't consented to it. They will know they have been recorded. Even when people know they are being recorded they can be taken out of context.

        – opa
        8 hours ago








      • 2





        @opa See the note at the bottom. It is a completely different issue when the recording is done in full view vs when it's done surreptitiously. Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded. I'm not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though.

        – Jeff Lambert
        8 hours ago











      • "Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded." Is not noted in your post AFAICS? and the fact that "[you are] not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though." means implicit consent here has no legal basis right?, and then we circle back around to how this is a justification of these laws.

        – opa
        8 hours ago






      • 4





        A particularly good example involving Project Veritas is a situation in which an ACORN employee 'played along' with a scam that O' Keefe purported to run, and then called the police after O' Keefe left. The viewer of O' Keefe's footage may take the ACORN employee at face value and assume he was facilitating the scam. It turns out that hidden recordings can be used to make honest citizens look like accessories to fraud. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

        – John
        7 hours ago






      • 1





        @opa I think I see where you're coming from now, but my experience can only inform me generally when it comes to issues of law. If you want an exact answer with respect to what limitations state laws have regarding implied two party consent I can only suggest asking about it at Law.SE, I can only answer the question here on Politics to the best of my ability. I can say that the general belief is that nobody can force you to say anything, and if you say something after being told you're being recorded that you regret, I don't think you'll get much sympathy.

        – Jeff Lambert
        4 hours ago














      11












      11








      11







      If I know you are recording me, I may speak differently and use clearer language. If I don't, I may be more likely to use ambiguous language that can be taken out of context. Consider the case of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Their goal is to surreptitiously record people doing things some people may think are bad and discredit them for political purposes. As it turns out, selective editing of the recordings caused a massive uproar on a number of issues when in fact the context surrounding the recorded exchanges was sometimes hotly disputed after editing, and in some cases demonstrably false.



      Numerous undercover investigations by would-be reporters at factory farms attempted to highlight the conditions of animals at those places, inspiring a wave of Ag-gag laws in some states and other anti-whistleblower legislation. In some cases they were successful at being truthful and highlighting abuse, in others they were only successful at hurting their cause since legislators in those areas weren't convinced of the recordings' veracity given how they were obtained.



      Having two-party consent to record interactions means everyone knows a recording exists. If I know a recording exists of me, I would be more likely to request a full unedited copy so that I may protect myself from people who only wish to further their own agenda regardless of what I actually say. If someone has to lie or be deceitful in order to obtain a recording, how can viewers trust that what they see or hear is the full context? A single surreptitious recording can be used to imply a large scale conspiracy and discredit an entire organization, when in reality there could just be a single bad actor.





      Note - this issue is distinct and separate from so-called "ambush journalism", since generally in those cases large lumbering cameramen are a giveaway that the target is being recorded.






      share|improve this answer













      If I know you are recording me, I may speak differently and use clearer language. If I don't, I may be more likely to use ambiguous language that can be taken out of context. Consider the case of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Their goal is to surreptitiously record people doing things some people may think are bad and discredit them for political purposes. As it turns out, selective editing of the recordings caused a massive uproar on a number of issues when in fact the context surrounding the recorded exchanges was sometimes hotly disputed after editing, and in some cases demonstrably false.



      Numerous undercover investigations by would-be reporters at factory farms attempted to highlight the conditions of animals at those places, inspiring a wave of Ag-gag laws in some states and other anti-whistleblower legislation. In some cases they were successful at being truthful and highlighting abuse, in others they were only successful at hurting their cause since legislators in those areas weren't convinced of the recordings' veracity given how they were obtained.



      Having two-party consent to record interactions means everyone knows a recording exists. If I know a recording exists of me, I would be more likely to request a full unedited copy so that I may protect myself from people who only wish to further their own agenda regardless of what I actually say. If someone has to lie or be deceitful in order to obtain a recording, how can viewers trust that what they see or hear is the full context? A single surreptitious recording can be used to imply a large scale conspiracy and discredit an entire organization, when in reality there could just be a single bad actor.





      Note - this issue is distinct and separate from so-called "ambush journalism", since generally in those cases large lumbering cameramen are a giveaway that the target is being recorded.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 11 hours ago









      Jeff LambertJeff Lambert

      10.1k52850




      10.1k52850













      • This doesn't really make sense when one party has declared recording, even if one party hasn't consented to it. They will know they have been recorded. Even when people know they are being recorded they can be taken out of context.

        – opa
        8 hours ago








      • 2





        @opa See the note at the bottom. It is a completely different issue when the recording is done in full view vs when it's done surreptitiously. Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded. I'm not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though.

        – Jeff Lambert
        8 hours ago











      • "Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded." Is not noted in your post AFAICS? and the fact that "[you are] not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though." means implicit consent here has no legal basis right?, and then we circle back around to how this is a justification of these laws.

        – opa
        8 hours ago






      • 4





        A particularly good example involving Project Veritas is a situation in which an ACORN employee 'played along' with a scam that O' Keefe purported to run, and then called the police after O' Keefe left. The viewer of O' Keefe's footage may take the ACORN employee at face value and assume he was facilitating the scam. It turns out that hidden recordings can be used to make honest citizens look like accessories to fraud. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

        – John
        7 hours ago






      • 1





        @opa I think I see where you're coming from now, but my experience can only inform me generally when it comes to issues of law. If you want an exact answer with respect to what limitations state laws have regarding implied two party consent I can only suggest asking about it at Law.SE, I can only answer the question here on Politics to the best of my ability. I can say that the general belief is that nobody can force you to say anything, and if you say something after being told you're being recorded that you regret, I don't think you'll get much sympathy.

        – Jeff Lambert
        4 hours ago



















      • This doesn't really make sense when one party has declared recording, even if one party hasn't consented to it. They will know they have been recorded. Even when people know they are being recorded they can be taken out of context.

        – opa
        8 hours ago








      • 2





        @opa See the note at the bottom. It is a completely different issue when the recording is done in full view vs when it's done surreptitiously. Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded. I'm not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though.

        – Jeff Lambert
        8 hours ago











      • "Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded." Is not noted in your post AFAICS? and the fact that "[you are] not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though." means implicit consent here has no legal basis right?, and then we circle back around to how this is a justification of these laws.

        – opa
        8 hours ago






      • 4





        A particularly good example involving Project Veritas is a situation in which an ACORN employee 'played along' with a scam that O' Keefe purported to run, and then called the police after O' Keefe left. The viewer of O' Keefe's footage may take the ACORN employee at face value and assume he was facilitating the scam. It turns out that hidden recordings can be used to make honest citizens look like accessories to fraud. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

        – John
        7 hours ago






      • 1





        @opa I think I see where you're coming from now, but my experience can only inform me generally when it comes to issues of law. If you want an exact answer with respect to what limitations state laws have regarding implied two party consent I can only suggest asking about it at Law.SE, I can only answer the question here on Politics to the best of my ability. I can say that the general belief is that nobody can force you to say anything, and if you say something after being told you're being recorded that you regret, I don't think you'll get much sympathy.

        – Jeff Lambert
        4 hours ago

















      This doesn't really make sense when one party has declared recording, even if one party hasn't consented to it. They will know they have been recorded. Even when people know they are being recorded they can be taken out of context.

      – opa
      8 hours ago







      This doesn't really make sense when one party has declared recording, even if one party hasn't consented to it. They will know they have been recorded. Even when people know they are being recorded they can be taken out of context.

      – opa
      8 hours ago






      2




      2





      @opa See the note at the bottom. It is a completely different issue when the recording is done in full view vs when it's done surreptitiously. Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded. I'm not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though.

      – Jeff Lambert
      8 hours ago





      @opa See the note at the bottom. It is a completely different issue when the recording is done in full view vs when it's done surreptitiously. Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded. I'm not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though.

      – Jeff Lambert
      8 hours ago













      "Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded." Is not noted in your post AFAICS? and the fact that "[you are] not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though." means implicit consent here has no legal basis right?, and then we circle back around to how this is a justification of these laws.

      – opa
      8 hours ago





      "Continuing an interaction once you know it is being recorded is implicitly consenting to being recorded." Is not noted in your post AFAICS? and the fact that "[you are] not sure if any state laws actually take that into account, though." means implicit consent here has no legal basis right?, and then we circle back around to how this is a justification of these laws.

      – opa
      8 hours ago




      4




      4





      A particularly good example involving Project Veritas is a situation in which an ACORN employee 'played along' with a scam that O' Keefe purported to run, and then called the police after O' Keefe left. The viewer of O' Keefe's footage may take the ACORN employee at face value and assume he was facilitating the scam. It turns out that hidden recordings can be used to make honest citizens look like accessories to fraud. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

      – John
      7 hours ago





      A particularly good example involving Project Veritas is a situation in which an ACORN employee 'played along' with a scam that O' Keefe purported to run, and then called the police after O' Keefe left. The viewer of O' Keefe's footage may take the ACORN employee at face value and assume he was facilitating the scam. It turns out that hidden recordings can be used to make honest citizens look like accessories to fraud. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

      – John
      7 hours ago




      1




      1





      @opa I think I see where you're coming from now, but my experience can only inform me generally when it comes to issues of law. If you want an exact answer with respect to what limitations state laws have regarding implied two party consent I can only suggest asking about it at Law.SE, I can only answer the question here on Politics to the best of my ability. I can say that the general belief is that nobody can force you to say anything, and if you say something after being told you're being recorded that you regret, I don't think you'll get much sympathy.

      – Jeff Lambert
      4 hours ago





      @opa I think I see where you're coming from now, but my experience can only inform me generally when it comes to issues of law. If you want an exact answer with respect to what limitations state laws have regarding implied two party consent I can only suggest asking about it at Law.SE, I can only answer the question here on Politics to the best of my ability. I can say that the general belief is that nobody can force you to say anything, and if you say something after being told you're being recorded that you regret, I don't think you'll get much sympathy.

      – Jeff Lambert
      4 hours ago











      11














      To pick a two-party-consent jurisdiction at random, let us consider California, USA.



      In 1967, the California Legislature enacted a broad, protective invasion-of-privacy statute in response to what it viewed as a serious and increasing threat to
      the confidentiality of private communications resulting from then recent advances
      in science and technology that had led to the development of new devices and
      techniques for eavesdropping upon and recording such private communications.



      This was done by means of Assembly Bill 860, which became Penal Code §§ 630-637.2. In a statement by Assemblyman Jesse Marvin "Big Daddy" Unruh, before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the bill was so described:




      The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
      technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
      for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
      the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
      use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the
      free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free
      and civilized society. The Legislature by this chapter intends to
      protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.




      This would suggest that the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation is a concern for privacy.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        Your example, which is 99% of your answer, does not seem to apply to this Q&A about 2-party consent since it is about eavesdropping. Unless there is something in the legalese that suggests otherwise, I don't see how you could call 1-party consent eavesdropping. Eavesdropping would be more 0-party consent, no?

        – Aaron
        4 hours ago
















      11














      To pick a two-party-consent jurisdiction at random, let us consider California, USA.



      In 1967, the California Legislature enacted a broad, protective invasion-of-privacy statute in response to what it viewed as a serious and increasing threat to
      the confidentiality of private communications resulting from then recent advances
      in science and technology that had led to the development of new devices and
      techniques for eavesdropping upon and recording such private communications.



      This was done by means of Assembly Bill 860, which became Penal Code §§ 630-637.2. In a statement by Assemblyman Jesse Marvin "Big Daddy" Unruh, before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the bill was so described:




      The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
      technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
      for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
      the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
      use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the
      free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free
      and civilized society. The Legislature by this chapter intends to
      protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.




      This would suggest that the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation is a concern for privacy.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 1





        Your example, which is 99% of your answer, does not seem to apply to this Q&A about 2-party consent since it is about eavesdropping. Unless there is something in the legalese that suggests otherwise, I don't see how you could call 1-party consent eavesdropping. Eavesdropping would be more 0-party consent, no?

        – Aaron
        4 hours ago














      11












      11








      11







      To pick a two-party-consent jurisdiction at random, let us consider California, USA.



      In 1967, the California Legislature enacted a broad, protective invasion-of-privacy statute in response to what it viewed as a serious and increasing threat to
      the confidentiality of private communications resulting from then recent advances
      in science and technology that had led to the development of new devices and
      techniques for eavesdropping upon and recording such private communications.



      This was done by means of Assembly Bill 860, which became Penal Code §§ 630-637.2. In a statement by Assemblyman Jesse Marvin "Big Daddy" Unruh, before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the bill was so described:




      The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
      technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
      for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
      the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
      use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the
      free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free
      and civilized society. The Legislature by this chapter intends to
      protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.




      This would suggest that the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation is a concern for privacy.






      share|improve this answer













      To pick a two-party-consent jurisdiction at random, let us consider California, USA.



      In 1967, the California Legislature enacted a broad, protective invasion-of-privacy statute in response to what it viewed as a serious and increasing threat to
      the confidentiality of private communications resulting from then recent advances
      in science and technology that had led to the development of new devices and
      techniques for eavesdropping upon and recording such private communications.



      This was done by means of Assembly Bill 860, which became Penal Code §§ 630-637.2. In a statement by Assemblyman Jesse Marvin "Big Daddy" Unruh, before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the bill was so described:




      The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
      technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
      for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
      the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
      use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the
      free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free
      and civilized society. The Legislature by this chapter intends to
      protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.




      This would suggest that the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation is a concern for privacy.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 10 hours ago









      RogerRoger

      716112




      716112








      • 1





        Your example, which is 99% of your answer, does not seem to apply to this Q&A about 2-party consent since it is about eavesdropping. Unless there is something in the legalese that suggests otherwise, I don't see how you could call 1-party consent eavesdropping. Eavesdropping would be more 0-party consent, no?

        – Aaron
        4 hours ago














      • 1





        Your example, which is 99% of your answer, does not seem to apply to this Q&A about 2-party consent since it is about eavesdropping. Unless there is something in the legalese that suggests otherwise, I don't see how you could call 1-party consent eavesdropping. Eavesdropping would be more 0-party consent, no?

        – Aaron
        4 hours ago








      1




      1





      Your example, which is 99% of your answer, does not seem to apply to this Q&A about 2-party consent since it is about eavesdropping. Unless there is something in the legalese that suggests otherwise, I don't see how you could call 1-party consent eavesdropping. Eavesdropping would be more 0-party consent, no?

      – Aaron
      4 hours ago





      Your example, which is 99% of your answer, does not seem to apply to this Q&A about 2-party consent since it is about eavesdropping. Unless there is something in the legalese that suggests otherwise, I don't see how you could call 1-party consent eavesdropping. Eavesdropping would be more 0-party consent, no?

      – Aaron
      4 hours ago











      1














      Why would you make a business deal with a person who doesn't consent to it being recorded ?



      The issue is not a business deal where you have different takes on what the agreement actually was (and I would strongly suspect that a recording of the conversation would be permissable in court).

      The Issue is private conversations that could be a problem in a different way. Like an access hollywood tape as an example (note that there was consent here, obviously, and both of them were wearing a microphone. I just used the incident as an example.).






      share|improve this answer
























      • What is the point of your example, if they had consented?

        – Azor Ahai
        4 hours ago











      • You realize that there's no example where they didn't, for legal reasons. But the point was, obviously, that the things that were said in the tape are the kinds of things the law is supposed to protect you from coming out.

        – xyious
        4 hours ago











      • The point wasn't "obvious" if I had to ask.

        – Azor Ahai
        4 hours ago
















      1














      Why would you make a business deal with a person who doesn't consent to it being recorded ?



      The issue is not a business deal where you have different takes on what the agreement actually was (and I would strongly suspect that a recording of the conversation would be permissable in court).

      The Issue is private conversations that could be a problem in a different way. Like an access hollywood tape as an example (note that there was consent here, obviously, and both of them were wearing a microphone. I just used the incident as an example.).






      share|improve this answer
























      • What is the point of your example, if they had consented?

        – Azor Ahai
        4 hours ago











      • You realize that there's no example where they didn't, for legal reasons. But the point was, obviously, that the things that were said in the tape are the kinds of things the law is supposed to protect you from coming out.

        – xyious
        4 hours ago











      • The point wasn't "obvious" if I had to ask.

        – Azor Ahai
        4 hours ago














      1












      1








      1







      Why would you make a business deal with a person who doesn't consent to it being recorded ?



      The issue is not a business deal where you have different takes on what the agreement actually was (and I would strongly suspect that a recording of the conversation would be permissable in court).

      The Issue is private conversations that could be a problem in a different way. Like an access hollywood tape as an example (note that there was consent here, obviously, and both of them were wearing a microphone. I just used the incident as an example.).






      share|improve this answer













      Why would you make a business deal with a person who doesn't consent to it being recorded ?



      The issue is not a business deal where you have different takes on what the agreement actually was (and I would strongly suspect that a recording of the conversation would be permissable in court).

      The Issue is private conversations that could be a problem in a different way. Like an access hollywood tape as an example (note that there was consent here, obviously, and both of them were wearing a microphone. I just used the incident as an example.).







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 9 hours ago









      xyiousxyious

      4136




      4136













      • What is the point of your example, if they had consented?

        – Azor Ahai
        4 hours ago











      • You realize that there's no example where they didn't, for legal reasons. But the point was, obviously, that the things that were said in the tape are the kinds of things the law is supposed to protect you from coming out.

        – xyious
        4 hours ago











      • The point wasn't "obvious" if I had to ask.

        – Azor Ahai
        4 hours ago



















      • What is the point of your example, if they had consented?

        – Azor Ahai
        4 hours ago











      • You realize that there's no example where they didn't, for legal reasons. But the point was, obviously, that the things that were said in the tape are the kinds of things the law is supposed to protect you from coming out.

        – xyious
        4 hours ago











      • The point wasn't "obvious" if I had to ask.

        – Azor Ahai
        4 hours ago

















      What is the point of your example, if they had consented?

      – Azor Ahai
      4 hours ago





      What is the point of your example, if they had consented?

      – Azor Ahai
      4 hours ago













      You realize that there's no example where they didn't, for legal reasons. But the point was, obviously, that the things that were said in the tape are the kinds of things the law is supposed to protect you from coming out.

      – xyious
      4 hours ago





      You realize that there's no example where they didn't, for legal reasons. But the point was, obviously, that the things that were said in the tape are the kinds of things the law is supposed to protect you from coming out.

      – xyious
      4 hours ago













      The point wasn't "obvious" if I had to ask.

      – Azor Ahai
      4 hours ago





      The point wasn't "obvious" if I had to ask.

      – Azor Ahai
      4 hours ago











      0














      I think you're starting from wrong assumption:




      A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.




      One's memory is not equivalent to a record. Your memory is a proof only to you, while a record is a proof you can use to convince others.




      If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.




      The act of observing changes the state of the system being observed. That's not only true for quantum physics but for people as well. A will behave differently: be more reserved and defensive knowing that the conversation is recorded. B will talk more freely and openly. By recording that A knows but B doesn't, the conversation is already biased, because A is talking things that will sound good on tape in court, while B is talking things that sound good in conversation. We are imperfect beings, we don't say things that are true. It can be summed up as: we say things that we imagine the other side wants to hear. With one-side recording, B is talking to A, but A is talking to the future judge (or whoever they plan to produce this record to). It's unavoidable that the judge will gravitate towards A.




      One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.




      Now this part puts A at clear advantage. It's not about who remembers it better, it's about who can convince the judge they're right. If A is right, they go to the court and produce the recording. If A relistens the recording and realizes they're wrong - they back down and hide the record. If be goes to the court, court has no way of forcing A to produce the record (your "ultimate source of truth") because nobody knows it exists.




      A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.




      That's not any disadvantage. You're stretching it too far. Both A and B represent their recollection about what happened. The fact that A knows for sure their recollection is closer to the truth than B's is annoying and frustrating but that's not a disadvantage. It's B who's at disadvantage, as human memory is imperfect and we can't tell facts from fiction. Or you can say that it's the truth (if it even exists) is at disadvantage.



      A can always choose: the not-really-unbiased recording, or human memory/imagination. It's like playing in casino with 2 dice and you get to pick which one everybody gets to honor after the throw. That's huge.






      share|improve this answer




























        0














        I think you're starting from wrong assumption:




        A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.




        One's memory is not equivalent to a record. Your memory is a proof only to you, while a record is a proof you can use to convince others.




        If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.




        The act of observing changes the state of the system being observed. That's not only true for quantum physics but for people as well. A will behave differently: be more reserved and defensive knowing that the conversation is recorded. B will talk more freely and openly. By recording that A knows but B doesn't, the conversation is already biased, because A is talking things that will sound good on tape in court, while B is talking things that sound good in conversation. We are imperfect beings, we don't say things that are true. It can be summed up as: we say things that we imagine the other side wants to hear. With one-side recording, B is talking to A, but A is talking to the future judge (or whoever they plan to produce this record to). It's unavoidable that the judge will gravitate towards A.




        One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.




        Now this part puts A at clear advantage. It's not about who remembers it better, it's about who can convince the judge they're right. If A is right, they go to the court and produce the recording. If A relistens the recording and realizes they're wrong - they back down and hide the record. If be goes to the court, court has no way of forcing A to produce the record (your "ultimate source of truth") because nobody knows it exists.




        A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.




        That's not any disadvantage. You're stretching it too far. Both A and B represent their recollection about what happened. The fact that A knows for sure their recollection is closer to the truth than B's is annoying and frustrating but that's not a disadvantage. It's B who's at disadvantage, as human memory is imperfect and we can't tell facts from fiction. Or you can say that it's the truth (if it even exists) is at disadvantage.



        A can always choose: the not-really-unbiased recording, or human memory/imagination. It's like playing in casino with 2 dice and you get to pick which one everybody gets to honor after the throw. That's huge.






        share|improve this answer


























          0












          0








          0







          I think you're starting from wrong assumption:




          A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.




          One's memory is not equivalent to a record. Your memory is a proof only to you, while a record is a proof you can use to convince others.




          If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.




          The act of observing changes the state of the system being observed. That's not only true for quantum physics but for people as well. A will behave differently: be more reserved and defensive knowing that the conversation is recorded. B will talk more freely and openly. By recording that A knows but B doesn't, the conversation is already biased, because A is talking things that will sound good on tape in court, while B is talking things that sound good in conversation. We are imperfect beings, we don't say things that are true. It can be summed up as: we say things that we imagine the other side wants to hear. With one-side recording, B is talking to A, but A is talking to the future judge (or whoever they plan to produce this record to). It's unavoidable that the judge will gravitate towards A.




          One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.




          Now this part puts A at clear advantage. It's not about who remembers it better, it's about who can convince the judge they're right. If A is right, they go to the court and produce the recording. If A relistens the recording and realizes they're wrong - they back down and hide the record. If be goes to the court, court has no way of forcing A to produce the record (your "ultimate source of truth") because nobody knows it exists.




          A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.




          That's not any disadvantage. You're stretching it too far. Both A and B represent their recollection about what happened. The fact that A knows for sure their recollection is closer to the truth than B's is annoying and frustrating but that's not a disadvantage. It's B who's at disadvantage, as human memory is imperfect and we can't tell facts from fiction. Or you can say that it's the truth (if it even exists) is at disadvantage.



          A can always choose: the not-really-unbiased recording, or human memory/imagination. It's like playing in casino with 2 dice and you get to pick which one everybody gets to honor after the throw. That's huge.






          share|improve this answer













          I think you're starting from wrong assumption:




          A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.




          One's memory is not equivalent to a record. Your memory is a proof only to you, while a record is a proof you can use to convince others.




          If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.




          The act of observing changes the state of the system being observed. That's not only true for quantum physics but for people as well. A will behave differently: be more reserved and defensive knowing that the conversation is recorded. B will talk more freely and openly. By recording that A knows but B doesn't, the conversation is already biased, because A is talking things that will sound good on tape in court, while B is talking things that sound good in conversation. We are imperfect beings, we don't say things that are true. It can be summed up as: we say things that we imagine the other side wants to hear. With one-side recording, B is talking to A, but A is talking to the future judge (or whoever they plan to produce this record to). It's unavoidable that the judge will gravitate towards A.




          One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.




          Now this part puts A at clear advantage. It's not about who remembers it better, it's about who can convince the judge they're right. If A is right, they go to the court and produce the recording. If A relistens the recording and realizes they're wrong - they back down and hide the record. If be goes to the court, court has no way of forcing A to produce the record (your "ultimate source of truth") because nobody knows it exists.




          A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.




          That's not any disadvantage. You're stretching it too far. Both A and B represent their recollection about what happened. The fact that A knows for sure their recollection is closer to the truth than B's is annoying and frustrating but that's not a disadvantage. It's B who's at disadvantage, as human memory is imperfect and we can't tell facts from fiction. Or you can say that it's the truth (if it even exists) is at disadvantage.



          A can always choose: the not-really-unbiased recording, or human memory/imagination. It's like playing in casino with 2 dice and you get to pick which one everybody gets to honor after the throw. That's huge.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          Agent_LAgent_L

          74639




          74639























              0














              This answer is about the differences between mutual notification and mutual consent. Other answers have already pointed out that people behave differently when they know they are being recorded -- which would happen in either case.



              Mutual consent leaves little ambiguity that both parties know the conversation is being recorded. One party must offer to make a recording, and the other party must actively accept.



              In contrast, when the standard is merely mutual notification, it is easy to dispute that adequate notice was not given. What is adequate language for such a notice? What if the other party could not hear or does not understand the notice? Do nonverbal actions such as showing recording equipment qualify as notice? Because no action is required by the second party, there is a great deal of ambiguity whether notice was adequately given. In some cases, the second party could simply deny after the fact that notice was given.



              The standard of mutual consent therefore reduces disputes between the parties that notice was given.






              share|improve this answer




























                0














                This answer is about the differences between mutual notification and mutual consent. Other answers have already pointed out that people behave differently when they know they are being recorded -- which would happen in either case.



                Mutual consent leaves little ambiguity that both parties know the conversation is being recorded. One party must offer to make a recording, and the other party must actively accept.



                In contrast, when the standard is merely mutual notification, it is easy to dispute that adequate notice was not given. What is adequate language for such a notice? What if the other party could not hear or does not understand the notice? Do nonverbal actions such as showing recording equipment qualify as notice? Because no action is required by the second party, there is a great deal of ambiguity whether notice was adequately given. In some cases, the second party could simply deny after the fact that notice was given.



                The standard of mutual consent therefore reduces disputes between the parties that notice was given.






                share|improve this answer


























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  This answer is about the differences between mutual notification and mutual consent. Other answers have already pointed out that people behave differently when they know they are being recorded -- which would happen in either case.



                  Mutual consent leaves little ambiguity that both parties know the conversation is being recorded. One party must offer to make a recording, and the other party must actively accept.



                  In contrast, when the standard is merely mutual notification, it is easy to dispute that adequate notice was not given. What is adequate language for such a notice? What if the other party could not hear or does not understand the notice? Do nonverbal actions such as showing recording equipment qualify as notice? Because no action is required by the second party, there is a great deal of ambiguity whether notice was adequately given. In some cases, the second party could simply deny after the fact that notice was given.



                  The standard of mutual consent therefore reduces disputes between the parties that notice was given.






                  share|improve this answer













                  This answer is about the differences between mutual notification and mutual consent. Other answers have already pointed out that people behave differently when they know they are being recorded -- which would happen in either case.



                  Mutual consent leaves little ambiguity that both parties know the conversation is being recorded. One party must offer to make a recording, and the other party must actively accept.



                  In contrast, when the standard is merely mutual notification, it is easy to dispute that adequate notice was not given. What is adequate language for such a notice? What if the other party could not hear or does not understand the notice? Do nonverbal actions such as showing recording equipment qualify as notice? Because no action is required by the second party, there is a great deal of ambiguity whether notice was adequately given. In some cases, the second party could simply deny after the fact that notice was given.



                  The standard of mutual consent therefore reduces disputes between the parties that notice was given.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 52 mins ago









                  Dr SheldonDr Sheldon

                  2867




                  2867






















                      Thomas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Thomas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Thomas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Thomas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40414%2fwhat-is-the-motivation-for-a-law-requiring-2-parties-to-consent-for-recording-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Masuk log Menu navigasi

                      Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

                      Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области