What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
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
New contributor
|
show 1 more comment
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
New contributor
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
New contributor
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
law
New contributor
New contributor
edited 12 hours ago
JJJ
6,22922455
6,22922455
New contributor
asked 12 hours ago
ThomasThomas
1914
1914
New contributor
New contributor
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
|
show 7 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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.).
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
|
show 7 more comments
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.
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
|
show 7 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 7 more comments
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
|
show 7 more comments
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.).
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
add a comment |
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.).
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
add a comment |
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.).
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.).
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 4 hours ago
Agent_LAgent_L
74639
74639
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 52 mins ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2867
2867
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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