What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhat is the oldest law still in force?What is the business case for the general electorate in requiring hairdressers to be licensed?What modern state has the lowest effective age of consent?Why are emergency service professionals exempt from CA prohibitions on texting while driving?What motivation, if any, was given for Alabama's write-in vote law?How binding is the two degree temperature limit agreement really?Why is advertising for medication requiring prescription allowed?Is the Flores Consent Decree binding nationally and currently?Can a Western democracy prevent private groups from using the country’s name/purporting to represent that country e.g. at the World Cup?How Could Michael Cohen Stand to Benefit by Lying to Congress Again

Output the Arecibo Message

Why are there uneven bright areas in this photo of black hole?

Is it okay to consider publishing in my first year of PhD?

ELI5: Why they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why they call it low cost?

How to type a long/em dash `—`

What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?

Finding the area between two curves with Integrate

Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?

Cooking pasta in a water boiler

Geography at the pixel level

The phrase "to the numbers born"?

What is this business jet?

What is preventing me from simply constructing a hash that's lower than the current target?

Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)

Can we generate random numbers using irrational numbers like π and e?

Ubuntu Server install with full GUI

How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure

Short story: child made less intelligent and less attractive

What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?

Worn-tile Scrabble

How can I have a shield and a way of attacking with a ranged weapon at the same time?

What does もの mean in this sentence?

Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?

Kerning for subscripts of sigma?



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



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhat is the oldest law still in force?What is the business case for the general electorate in requiring hairdressers to be licensed?What modern state has the lowest effective age of consent?Why are emergency service professionals exempt from CA prohibitions on texting while driving?What motivation, if any, was given for Alabama's write-in vote law?How binding is the two degree temperature limit agreement really?Why is advertising for medication requiring prescription allowed?Is the Flores Consent Decree binding nationally and currently?Can a Western democracy prevent private groups from using the country’s name/purporting to represent that country e.g. at the World Cup?How Could Michael Cohen Stand to Benefit by Lying to Congress Again










39















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
    2 days ago






  • 3





    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
    2 days 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
    2 days ago






  • 12





    @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
    2 days ago











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

    – Thomas
    2 days ago















39















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
    2 days ago






  • 3





    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
    2 days 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
    2 days ago






  • 12





    @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
    2 days ago











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

    – Thomas
    2 days ago













39












39








39


5






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 2 days ago









JJJ

6,37222456




6,37222456






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 2 days ago









ThomasThomas

29624




29624




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
    2 days ago






  • 3





    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
    2 days 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
    2 days ago






  • 12





    @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
    2 days ago











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

    – Thomas
    2 days 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
    2 days ago






  • 3





    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
    2 days 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
    2 days ago






  • 12





    @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
    2 days ago











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

    – Thomas
    2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago




3




3





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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days 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
2 days ago




12




12





@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
2 days 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
2 days ago













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

– Thomas
2 days ago





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

– Thomas
2 days ago










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















35














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


















  • 3





    @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
    2 days ago






  • 14





    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
    2 days ago






  • 6





    Downvoted for the baseless claim that Project Veritas do "selective editing of the recordings" because they always offer the full, unedited versions, and this is merely a myth peddled by political outlets (on the receiving end of said records) like media matters and think progress.

    – SSight3
    2 days ago






  • 12





    @SSight3 Maybe they do offer the full versions somewhere, I'm not sure, but what they released to media outlets was definitely selectively edited so I welcome your downvote. Have a great day!

    – Jeff Lambert
    2 days ago






  • 5





    @JeffLambert Examples: townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/28/… projectveritas.com/2014/05/20/…

    – SSight3
    2 days ago



















23














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


















  • 4





    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
    2 days ago






  • 6





    @Aaron: The law explicitly addreses recording of conversations: " 632 (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished [...]" - California Penal Code, 631.

    – sleske
    yesterday






  • 1





    The way the law is worded, it's more two-party knowledge than two-party consent. "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication" and then "confidential communication" is defined as being one in which the parties participate in under the belief that it's not being recorded.

    – Acccumulation
    yesterday






  • 1





    @Acccumulation Knowledge is an obvious prerequisite of consent, so there is a close relationship. Once there is knowledge of the intent to record a conversation, consent is easily indicated by action: non-consent is expressed by stopping to talk, walking away, hanging up the phone, etc. Consent is expressed by continuing the verbal interaction in the full knowledge it is being recorded.

    – njuffa
    yesterday











  • Jesse Unruh said "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And he didn't want anyone to record conversations with him without his permission. Was this law a pre-emptive strike against anti-corruption investigations?

    – Jasper
    yesterday


















14














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






























    3














    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
      2 days 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
      2 days ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      2 days ago


















    3














    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






























      3














      If I know the conversation is being recorded and you do not I can deliberately steer it to implicate you in things while avoiding implications to myself.



      I can also selectively edit the audio after the conversation happens and unless we both have a copy it is hard for me to prove that happened. If both people know it is being recorded and have a copy of the original recording that is fair to both sides.



      For example let's say two politicians are talking and you talk about the affair you had in order to get your opponent to talk about your affair. Then afterwords you cut out your own admission and anonymously send the other part to a few reporters. Or even worse take a few snippets out of context (potentially if really sliding down the slippery slope completely re-cut them).



      For example "I hear you had an affair", "I deny that". "What do you think about bill X", "That's a complicated question" could be re-cut as "I hear you had an affair", "That's a complicated question" and as only one person has the recording it is hard to prove otherwise.






      share|improve this answer






























        1














        I'd say everyone here more or less assumes that recording can be done only by one party.
        So for example editing is easily done as no one can prove it was edited [don't know technicalities behind proving editing].



        But getting the advantage because of editing might be as well false. Edited proof might actually lead to loosing case, imprisonment etc, if other party was also recording secretly and this is now proof of dishonesty. So instead of being leverage is exactly the opposite.



        Since there are laws prohibiting use of recordings, the use of the recordings is not being improved and we all are in the grey area of 'what if'.



        I can imagine that idea behind not using recordings might be that it might divide society more. No one would speak freely anymore in private settings etc. especially if there would be some televised cases of clebs or citizens loosing a lot because of being secretly recorded.
        Distrust could be really bad.



        I see no reason though, why in business settings it should be ever prohibited. That is the setting that is widely abused by cowboys or too mighty business people anyway - and I think that might be the real reason of no recording laws. Mighty business people would never allow this kind of leverage to anyone.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




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




















        • While modern digital editing techniques make it possible to do very sophisticated editing that's difficult to prove, I think you'll find that most such laws were crafted long before such techology existed, when recording was primarily done on magnetic tape, and editing consisted of splicing and re-recording. I doubt ease of editing was a factor in the creation of such laws.

          – barbecue
          5 hours ago


















        1














        One big thing not covered yet is that 1 party consent allows recording a person without their consent, while 2 party consent does not.



        • 1 party consent means: You are allowed to record people without their consent*.

        • 2 party consent means: To record someone you need their consent**.

        So the discussion gets down to if lawmakers want to allow people to record themselves and their constituents without their consent, or not. There are plenty of arguments either way, with the main argument in favor of recording without consent being transparency, while the main argument against is fear of slander/extortion.




        *under limited but rather common circumstances.



        **exceptions apply






        share|improve this answer






























          0














          This law is to protect salesmen, collection agents, contractors, repair shops, etc. from customers who would be able to prove what representations and promises were made if the recording were allowed. In MA (until a federal court ruling) it served, according to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, to prevent criminals from documenting police misconduct.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




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




















          • Please add sources to support your answer. You answer is as yet unconvincing that those are the reasons for making such laws.

            – JJJ
            8 hours ago











          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

























          9 Answers
          9






          active

          oldest

          votes








          9 Answers
          9






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          35














          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


















          • 3





            @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
            2 days ago






          • 14





            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
            2 days ago






          • 6





            Downvoted for the baseless claim that Project Veritas do "selective editing of the recordings" because they always offer the full, unedited versions, and this is merely a myth peddled by political outlets (on the receiving end of said records) like media matters and think progress.

            – SSight3
            2 days ago






          • 12





            @SSight3 Maybe they do offer the full versions somewhere, I'm not sure, but what they released to media outlets was definitely selectively edited so I welcome your downvote. Have a great day!

            – Jeff Lambert
            2 days ago






          • 5





            @JeffLambert Examples: townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/28/… projectveritas.com/2014/05/20/…

            – SSight3
            2 days ago
















          35














          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


















          • 3





            @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
            2 days ago






          • 14





            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
            2 days ago






          • 6





            Downvoted for the baseless claim that Project Veritas do "selective editing of the recordings" because they always offer the full, unedited versions, and this is merely a myth peddled by political outlets (on the receiving end of said records) like media matters and think progress.

            – SSight3
            2 days ago






          • 12





            @SSight3 Maybe they do offer the full versions somewhere, I'm not sure, but what they released to media outlets was definitely selectively edited so I welcome your downvote. Have a great day!

            – Jeff Lambert
            2 days ago






          • 5





            @JeffLambert Examples: townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/28/… projectveritas.com/2014/05/20/…

            – SSight3
            2 days ago














          35












          35








          35







          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 2 days ago









          Jeff LambertJeff Lambert

          10.4k52950




          10.4k52950







          • 3





            @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
            2 days ago






          • 14





            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
            2 days ago






          • 6





            Downvoted for the baseless claim that Project Veritas do "selective editing of the recordings" because they always offer the full, unedited versions, and this is merely a myth peddled by political outlets (on the receiving end of said records) like media matters and think progress.

            – SSight3
            2 days ago






          • 12





            @SSight3 Maybe they do offer the full versions somewhere, I'm not sure, but what they released to media outlets was definitely selectively edited so I welcome your downvote. Have a great day!

            – Jeff Lambert
            2 days ago






          • 5





            @JeffLambert Examples: townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/28/… projectveritas.com/2014/05/20/…

            – SSight3
            2 days ago













          • 3





            @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
            2 days ago






          • 14





            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
            2 days ago






          • 6





            Downvoted for the baseless claim that Project Veritas do "selective editing of the recordings" because they always offer the full, unedited versions, and this is merely a myth peddled by political outlets (on the receiving end of said records) like media matters and think progress.

            – SSight3
            2 days ago






          • 12





            @SSight3 Maybe they do offer the full versions somewhere, I'm not sure, but what they released to media outlets was definitely selectively edited so I welcome your downvote. Have a great day!

            – Jeff Lambert
            2 days ago






          • 5





            @JeffLambert Examples: townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/28/… projectveritas.com/2014/05/20/…

            – SSight3
            2 days ago








          3




          3





          @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
          2 days 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
          2 days ago




          14




          14





          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
          2 days 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
          2 days ago




          6




          6





          Downvoted for the baseless claim that Project Veritas do "selective editing of the recordings" because they always offer the full, unedited versions, and this is merely a myth peddled by political outlets (on the receiving end of said records) like media matters and think progress.

          – SSight3
          2 days ago





          Downvoted for the baseless claim that Project Veritas do "selective editing of the recordings" because they always offer the full, unedited versions, and this is merely a myth peddled by political outlets (on the receiving end of said records) like media matters and think progress.

          – SSight3
          2 days ago




          12




          12





          @SSight3 Maybe they do offer the full versions somewhere, I'm not sure, but what they released to media outlets was definitely selectively edited so I welcome your downvote. Have a great day!

          – Jeff Lambert
          2 days ago





          @SSight3 Maybe they do offer the full versions somewhere, I'm not sure, but what they released to media outlets was definitely selectively edited so I welcome your downvote. Have a great day!

          – Jeff Lambert
          2 days ago




          5




          5





          @JeffLambert Examples: townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/28/… projectveritas.com/2014/05/20/…

          – SSight3
          2 days ago






          @JeffLambert Examples: townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/28/… projectveritas.com/2014/05/20/…

          – SSight3
          2 days ago












          23














          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


















          • 4





            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
            2 days ago






          • 6





            @Aaron: The law explicitly addreses recording of conversations: " 632 (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished [...]" - California Penal Code, 631.

            – sleske
            yesterday






          • 1





            The way the law is worded, it's more two-party knowledge than two-party consent. "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication" and then "confidential communication" is defined as being one in which the parties participate in under the belief that it's not being recorded.

            – Acccumulation
            yesterday






          • 1





            @Acccumulation Knowledge is an obvious prerequisite of consent, so there is a close relationship. Once there is knowledge of the intent to record a conversation, consent is easily indicated by action: non-consent is expressed by stopping to talk, walking away, hanging up the phone, etc. Consent is expressed by continuing the verbal interaction in the full knowledge it is being recorded.

            – njuffa
            yesterday











          • Jesse Unruh said "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And he didn't want anyone to record conversations with him without his permission. Was this law a pre-emptive strike against anti-corruption investigations?

            – Jasper
            yesterday















          23














          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


















          • 4





            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
            2 days ago






          • 6





            @Aaron: The law explicitly addreses recording of conversations: " 632 (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished [...]" - California Penal Code, 631.

            – sleske
            yesterday






          • 1





            The way the law is worded, it's more two-party knowledge than two-party consent. "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication" and then "confidential communication" is defined as being one in which the parties participate in under the belief that it's not being recorded.

            – Acccumulation
            yesterday






          • 1





            @Acccumulation Knowledge is an obvious prerequisite of consent, so there is a close relationship. Once there is knowledge of the intent to record a conversation, consent is easily indicated by action: non-consent is expressed by stopping to talk, walking away, hanging up the phone, etc. Consent is expressed by continuing the verbal interaction in the full knowledge it is being recorded.

            – njuffa
            yesterday











          • Jesse Unruh said "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And he didn't want anyone to record conversations with him without his permission. Was this law a pre-emptive strike against anti-corruption investigations?

            – Jasper
            yesterday













          23












          23








          23







          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 2 days ago









          RogerRoger

          854112




          854112







          • 4





            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
            2 days ago






          • 6





            @Aaron: The law explicitly addreses recording of conversations: " 632 (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished [...]" - California Penal Code, 631.

            – sleske
            yesterday






          • 1





            The way the law is worded, it's more two-party knowledge than two-party consent. "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication" and then "confidential communication" is defined as being one in which the parties participate in under the belief that it's not being recorded.

            – Acccumulation
            yesterday






          • 1





            @Acccumulation Knowledge is an obvious prerequisite of consent, so there is a close relationship. Once there is knowledge of the intent to record a conversation, consent is easily indicated by action: non-consent is expressed by stopping to talk, walking away, hanging up the phone, etc. Consent is expressed by continuing the verbal interaction in the full knowledge it is being recorded.

            – njuffa
            yesterday











          • Jesse Unruh said "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And he didn't want anyone to record conversations with him without his permission. Was this law a pre-emptive strike against anti-corruption investigations?

            – Jasper
            yesterday












          • 4





            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
            2 days ago






          • 6





            @Aaron: The law explicitly addreses recording of conversations: " 632 (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished [...]" - California Penal Code, 631.

            – sleske
            yesterday






          • 1





            The way the law is worded, it's more two-party knowledge than two-party consent. "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication" and then "confidential communication" is defined as being one in which the parties participate in under the belief that it's not being recorded.

            – Acccumulation
            yesterday






          • 1





            @Acccumulation Knowledge is an obvious prerequisite of consent, so there is a close relationship. Once there is knowledge of the intent to record a conversation, consent is easily indicated by action: non-consent is expressed by stopping to talk, walking away, hanging up the phone, etc. Consent is expressed by continuing the verbal interaction in the full knowledge it is being recorded.

            – njuffa
            yesterday











          • Jesse Unruh said "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And he didn't want anyone to record conversations with him without his permission. Was this law a pre-emptive strike against anti-corruption investigations?

            – Jasper
            yesterday







          4




          4





          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
          2 days 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
          2 days ago




          6




          6





          @Aaron: The law explicitly addreses recording of conversations: " 632 (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished [...]" - California Penal Code, 631.

          – sleske
          yesterday





          @Aaron: The law explicitly addreses recording of conversations: " 632 (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished [...]" - California Penal Code, 631.

          – sleske
          yesterday




          1




          1





          The way the law is worded, it's more two-party knowledge than two-party consent. "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication" and then "confidential communication" is defined as being one in which the parties participate in under the belief that it's not being recorded.

          – Acccumulation
          yesterday





          The way the law is worded, it's more two-party knowledge than two-party consent. "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication" and then "confidential communication" is defined as being one in which the parties participate in under the belief that it's not being recorded.

          – Acccumulation
          yesterday




          1




          1





          @Acccumulation Knowledge is an obvious prerequisite of consent, so there is a close relationship. Once there is knowledge of the intent to record a conversation, consent is easily indicated by action: non-consent is expressed by stopping to talk, walking away, hanging up the phone, etc. Consent is expressed by continuing the verbal interaction in the full knowledge it is being recorded.

          – njuffa
          yesterday





          @Acccumulation Knowledge is an obvious prerequisite of consent, so there is a close relationship. Once there is knowledge of the intent to record a conversation, consent is easily indicated by action: non-consent is expressed by stopping to talk, walking away, hanging up the phone, etc. Consent is expressed by continuing the verbal interaction in the full knowledge it is being recorded.

          – njuffa
          yesterday













          Jesse Unruh said "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And he didn't want anyone to record conversations with him without his permission. Was this law a pre-emptive strike against anti-corruption investigations?

          – Jasper
          yesterday





          Jesse Unruh said "Money is the mother's milk of politics." And he didn't want anyone to record conversations with him without his permission. Was this law a pre-emptive strike against anti-corruption investigations?

          – Jasper
          yesterday











          14














          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



























            14














            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

























              14












              14








              14







              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 2 days ago









              Agent_LAgent_L

              886310




              886310





















                  3














                  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
                    2 days 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
                    2 days ago











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

                    – Azor Ahai
                    2 days ago















                  3














                  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
                    2 days 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
                    2 days ago











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

                    – Azor Ahai
                    2 days ago













                  3












                  3








                  3







                  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 2 days ago









                  xyiousxyious

                  4336




                  4336












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

                    – Azor Ahai
                    2 days 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
                    2 days ago











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

                    – Azor Ahai
                    2 days ago

















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

                    – Azor Ahai
                    2 days 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
                    2 days ago











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

                    – Azor Ahai
                    2 days ago
















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

                  – Azor Ahai
                  2 days ago





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

                  – Azor Ahai
                  2 days 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
                  2 days 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
                  2 days ago













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

                  – Azor Ahai
                  2 days ago





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

                  – Azor Ahai
                  2 days ago











                  3














                  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



























                    3














                    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

























                      3












                      3








                      3







                      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 2 days ago









                      Dr SheldonDr Sheldon

                      3167




                      3167





















                          3














                          If I know the conversation is being recorded and you do not I can deliberately steer it to implicate you in things while avoiding implications to myself.



                          I can also selectively edit the audio after the conversation happens and unless we both have a copy it is hard for me to prove that happened. If both people know it is being recorded and have a copy of the original recording that is fair to both sides.



                          For example let's say two politicians are talking and you talk about the affair you had in order to get your opponent to talk about your affair. Then afterwords you cut out your own admission and anonymously send the other part to a few reporters. Or even worse take a few snippets out of context (potentially if really sliding down the slippery slope completely re-cut them).



                          For example "I hear you had an affair", "I deny that". "What do you think about bill X", "That's a complicated question" could be re-cut as "I hear you had an affair", "That's a complicated question" and as only one person has the recording it is hard to prove otherwise.






                          share|improve this answer



























                            3














                            If I know the conversation is being recorded and you do not I can deliberately steer it to implicate you in things while avoiding implications to myself.



                            I can also selectively edit the audio after the conversation happens and unless we both have a copy it is hard for me to prove that happened. If both people know it is being recorded and have a copy of the original recording that is fair to both sides.



                            For example let's say two politicians are talking and you talk about the affair you had in order to get your opponent to talk about your affair. Then afterwords you cut out your own admission and anonymously send the other part to a few reporters. Or even worse take a few snippets out of context (potentially if really sliding down the slippery slope completely re-cut them).



                            For example "I hear you had an affair", "I deny that". "What do you think about bill X", "That's a complicated question" could be re-cut as "I hear you had an affair", "That's a complicated question" and as only one person has the recording it is hard to prove otherwise.






                            share|improve this answer

























                              3












                              3








                              3







                              If I know the conversation is being recorded and you do not I can deliberately steer it to implicate you in things while avoiding implications to myself.



                              I can also selectively edit the audio after the conversation happens and unless we both have a copy it is hard for me to prove that happened. If both people know it is being recorded and have a copy of the original recording that is fair to both sides.



                              For example let's say two politicians are talking and you talk about the affair you had in order to get your opponent to talk about your affair. Then afterwords you cut out your own admission and anonymously send the other part to a few reporters. Or even worse take a few snippets out of context (potentially if really sliding down the slippery slope completely re-cut them).



                              For example "I hear you had an affair", "I deny that". "What do you think about bill X", "That's a complicated question" could be re-cut as "I hear you had an affair", "That's a complicated question" and as only one person has the recording it is hard to prove otherwise.






                              share|improve this answer













                              If I know the conversation is being recorded and you do not I can deliberately steer it to implicate you in things while avoiding implications to myself.



                              I can also selectively edit the audio after the conversation happens and unless we both have a copy it is hard for me to prove that happened. If both people know it is being recorded and have a copy of the original recording that is fair to both sides.



                              For example let's say two politicians are talking and you talk about the affair you had in order to get your opponent to talk about your affair. Then afterwords you cut out your own admission and anonymously send the other part to a few reporters. Or even worse take a few snippets out of context (potentially if really sliding down the slippery slope completely re-cut them).



                              For example "I hear you had an affair", "I deny that". "What do you think about bill X", "That's a complicated question" could be re-cut as "I hear you had an affair", "That's a complicated question" and as only one person has the recording it is hard to prove otherwise.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered yesterday









                              Tim BTim B

                              1,254711




                              1,254711





















                                  1














                                  I'd say everyone here more or less assumes that recording can be done only by one party.
                                  So for example editing is easily done as no one can prove it was edited [don't know technicalities behind proving editing].



                                  But getting the advantage because of editing might be as well false. Edited proof might actually lead to loosing case, imprisonment etc, if other party was also recording secretly and this is now proof of dishonesty. So instead of being leverage is exactly the opposite.



                                  Since there are laws prohibiting use of recordings, the use of the recordings is not being improved and we all are in the grey area of 'what if'.



                                  I can imagine that idea behind not using recordings might be that it might divide society more. No one would speak freely anymore in private settings etc. especially if there would be some televised cases of clebs or citizens loosing a lot because of being secretly recorded.
                                  Distrust could be really bad.



                                  I see no reason though, why in business settings it should be ever prohibited. That is the setting that is widely abused by cowboys or too mighty business people anyway - and I think that might be the real reason of no recording laws. Mighty business people would never allow this kind of leverage to anyone.






                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




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




















                                  • While modern digital editing techniques make it possible to do very sophisticated editing that's difficult to prove, I think you'll find that most such laws were crafted long before such techology existed, when recording was primarily done on magnetic tape, and editing consisted of splicing and re-recording. I doubt ease of editing was a factor in the creation of such laws.

                                    – barbecue
                                    5 hours ago















                                  1














                                  I'd say everyone here more or less assumes that recording can be done only by one party.
                                  So for example editing is easily done as no one can prove it was edited [don't know technicalities behind proving editing].



                                  But getting the advantage because of editing might be as well false. Edited proof might actually lead to loosing case, imprisonment etc, if other party was also recording secretly and this is now proof of dishonesty. So instead of being leverage is exactly the opposite.



                                  Since there are laws prohibiting use of recordings, the use of the recordings is not being improved and we all are in the grey area of 'what if'.



                                  I can imagine that idea behind not using recordings might be that it might divide society more. No one would speak freely anymore in private settings etc. especially if there would be some televised cases of clebs or citizens loosing a lot because of being secretly recorded.
                                  Distrust could be really bad.



                                  I see no reason though, why in business settings it should be ever prohibited. That is the setting that is widely abused by cowboys or too mighty business people anyway - and I think that might be the real reason of no recording laws. Mighty business people would never allow this kind of leverage to anyone.






                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




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




















                                  • While modern digital editing techniques make it possible to do very sophisticated editing that's difficult to prove, I think you'll find that most such laws were crafted long before such techology existed, when recording was primarily done on magnetic tape, and editing consisted of splicing and re-recording. I doubt ease of editing was a factor in the creation of such laws.

                                    – barbecue
                                    5 hours ago













                                  1












                                  1








                                  1







                                  I'd say everyone here more or less assumes that recording can be done only by one party.
                                  So for example editing is easily done as no one can prove it was edited [don't know technicalities behind proving editing].



                                  But getting the advantage because of editing might be as well false. Edited proof might actually lead to loosing case, imprisonment etc, if other party was also recording secretly and this is now proof of dishonesty. So instead of being leverage is exactly the opposite.



                                  Since there are laws prohibiting use of recordings, the use of the recordings is not being improved and we all are in the grey area of 'what if'.



                                  I can imagine that idea behind not using recordings might be that it might divide society more. No one would speak freely anymore in private settings etc. especially if there would be some televised cases of clebs or citizens loosing a lot because of being secretly recorded.
                                  Distrust could be really bad.



                                  I see no reason though, why in business settings it should be ever prohibited. That is the setting that is widely abused by cowboys or too mighty business people anyway - and I think that might be the real reason of no recording laws. Mighty business people would never allow this kind of leverage to anyone.






                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




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










                                  I'd say everyone here more or less assumes that recording can be done only by one party.
                                  So for example editing is easily done as no one can prove it was edited [don't know technicalities behind proving editing].



                                  But getting the advantage because of editing might be as well false. Edited proof might actually lead to loosing case, imprisonment etc, if other party was also recording secretly and this is now proof of dishonesty. So instead of being leverage is exactly the opposite.



                                  Since there are laws prohibiting use of recordings, the use of the recordings is not being improved and we all are in the grey area of 'what if'.



                                  I can imagine that idea behind not using recordings might be that it might divide society more. No one would speak freely anymore in private settings etc. especially if there would be some televised cases of clebs or citizens loosing a lot because of being secretly recorded.
                                  Distrust could be really bad.



                                  I see no reason though, why in business settings it should be ever prohibited. That is the setting that is widely abused by cowboys or too mighty business people anyway - and I think that might be the real reason of no recording laws. Mighty business people would never allow this kind of leverage to anyone.







                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




                                  Over-heads 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 answer



                                  share|improve this answer








                                  edited 21 hours ago









                                  JJJ

                                  6,37222456




                                  6,37222456






                                  New contributor




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









                                  answered 21 hours ago









                                  Over-headsOver-heads

                                  111




                                  111




                                  New contributor




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





                                  New contributor





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






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












                                  • While modern digital editing techniques make it possible to do very sophisticated editing that's difficult to prove, I think you'll find that most such laws were crafted long before such techology existed, when recording was primarily done on magnetic tape, and editing consisted of splicing and re-recording. I doubt ease of editing was a factor in the creation of such laws.

                                    – barbecue
                                    5 hours ago

















                                  • While modern digital editing techniques make it possible to do very sophisticated editing that's difficult to prove, I think you'll find that most such laws were crafted long before such techology existed, when recording was primarily done on magnetic tape, and editing consisted of splicing and re-recording. I doubt ease of editing was a factor in the creation of such laws.

                                    – barbecue
                                    5 hours ago
















                                  While modern digital editing techniques make it possible to do very sophisticated editing that's difficult to prove, I think you'll find that most such laws were crafted long before such techology existed, when recording was primarily done on magnetic tape, and editing consisted of splicing and re-recording. I doubt ease of editing was a factor in the creation of such laws.

                                  – barbecue
                                  5 hours ago





                                  While modern digital editing techniques make it possible to do very sophisticated editing that's difficult to prove, I think you'll find that most such laws were crafted long before such techology existed, when recording was primarily done on magnetic tape, and editing consisted of splicing and re-recording. I doubt ease of editing was a factor in the creation of such laws.

                                  – barbecue
                                  5 hours ago











                                  1














                                  One big thing not covered yet is that 1 party consent allows recording a person without their consent, while 2 party consent does not.



                                  • 1 party consent means: You are allowed to record people without their consent*.

                                  • 2 party consent means: To record someone you need their consent**.

                                  So the discussion gets down to if lawmakers want to allow people to record themselves and their constituents without their consent, or not. There are plenty of arguments either way, with the main argument in favor of recording without consent being transparency, while the main argument against is fear of slander/extortion.




                                  *under limited but rather common circumstances.



                                  **exceptions apply






                                  share|improve this answer



























                                    1














                                    One big thing not covered yet is that 1 party consent allows recording a person without their consent, while 2 party consent does not.



                                    • 1 party consent means: You are allowed to record people without their consent*.

                                    • 2 party consent means: To record someone you need their consent**.

                                    So the discussion gets down to if lawmakers want to allow people to record themselves and their constituents without their consent, or not. There are plenty of arguments either way, with the main argument in favor of recording without consent being transparency, while the main argument against is fear of slander/extortion.




                                    *under limited but rather common circumstances.



                                    **exceptions apply






                                    share|improve this answer

























                                      1












                                      1








                                      1







                                      One big thing not covered yet is that 1 party consent allows recording a person without their consent, while 2 party consent does not.



                                      • 1 party consent means: You are allowed to record people without their consent*.

                                      • 2 party consent means: To record someone you need their consent**.

                                      So the discussion gets down to if lawmakers want to allow people to record themselves and their constituents without their consent, or not. There are plenty of arguments either way, with the main argument in favor of recording without consent being transparency, while the main argument against is fear of slander/extortion.




                                      *under limited but rather common circumstances.



                                      **exceptions apply






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      One big thing not covered yet is that 1 party consent allows recording a person without their consent, while 2 party consent does not.



                                      • 1 party consent means: You are allowed to record people without their consent*.

                                      • 2 party consent means: To record someone you need their consent**.

                                      So the discussion gets down to if lawmakers want to allow people to record themselves and their constituents without their consent, or not. There are plenty of arguments either way, with the main argument in favor of recording without consent being transparency, while the main argument against is fear of slander/extortion.




                                      *under limited but rather common circumstances.



                                      **exceptions apply







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 7 hours ago









                                      PeterPeter

                                      3,4171815




                                      3,4171815





















                                          0














                                          This law is to protect salesmen, collection agents, contractors, repair shops, etc. from customers who would be able to prove what representations and promises were made if the recording were allowed. In MA (until a federal court ruling) it served, according to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, to prevent criminals from documenting police misconduct.






                                          share|improve this answer








                                          New contributor




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




















                                          • Please add sources to support your answer. You answer is as yet unconvincing that those are the reasons for making such laws.

                                            – JJJ
                                            8 hours ago















                                          0














                                          This law is to protect salesmen, collection agents, contractors, repair shops, etc. from customers who would be able to prove what representations and promises were made if the recording were allowed. In MA (until a federal court ruling) it served, according to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, to prevent criminals from documenting police misconduct.






                                          share|improve this answer








                                          New contributor




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




















                                          • Please add sources to support your answer. You answer is as yet unconvincing that those are the reasons for making such laws.

                                            – JJJ
                                            8 hours ago













                                          0












                                          0








                                          0







                                          This law is to protect salesmen, collection agents, contractors, repair shops, etc. from customers who would be able to prove what representations and promises were made if the recording were allowed. In MA (until a federal court ruling) it served, according to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, to prevent criminals from documenting police misconduct.






                                          share|improve this answer








                                          New contributor




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










                                          This law is to protect salesmen, collection agents, contractors, repair shops, etc. from customers who would be able to prove what representations and promises were made if the recording were allowed. In MA (until a federal court ruling) it served, according to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, to prevent criminals from documenting police misconduct.







                                          share|improve this answer








                                          New contributor




                                          Simon Dog 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 answer



                                          share|improve this answer






                                          New contributor




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









                                          answered 8 hours ago









                                          Simon DogSimon Dog

                                          1




                                          1




                                          New contributor




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





                                          New contributor





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






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












                                          • Please add sources to support your answer. You answer is as yet unconvincing that those are the reasons for making such laws.

                                            – JJJ
                                            8 hours ago

















                                          • Please add sources to support your answer. You answer is as yet unconvincing that those are the reasons for making such laws.

                                            – JJJ
                                            8 hours ago
















                                          Please add sources to support your answer. You answer is as yet unconvincing that those are the reasons for making such laws.

                                          – JJJ
                                          8 hours ago





                                          Please add sources to support your answer. You answer is as yet unconvincing that those are the reasons for making such laws.

                                          – JJJ
                                          8 hours ago










                                          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

                                          Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                                          Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                                          Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?