Hacker News Reader

Comment by edoo | Hacker News Reader

This happens to be a good example of how there are so many laws you likely break some all the time. California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations (but not with your ears and brain storage!). That means if the google phone in your pocket listens to people at a restaurant or your alexa listens to your delivery man for a second you are a criminal under California penal code.

View on HN

In this case it's not the fault of the law though. Everyone with a basic level of intelligence and awareness of cultural norms, i.e. everyone working at Google developing and marketing these kind of products, is aware that this might cause an issue. But blinded by money and optimistic technobabble they do it anyway and make it near impossible or very unpractical for the user to turn it off.

I would have no problem with some legal action against those people.

Isn't here some law against tricking other people into breaking the law?

I'm pretty sure the burden would fall on the end user. They don't have to activate those features in an environment where using them would be against the law. Having them activated at your home and failing to inform visitors would be on the user.

Although legally you might be right, and I'm _sure_ that this is written somewhere in that 4 pages of small print that you didn't read. In practice, no-one is going to be aware of this, and because the "big tech" company isn't ensuring that all users are aware of the contract that they have entered has been adequately explained to them, they are arguably at fault for not ensuring that proper authorisations have been obtained.

Who is the end user of that data?

> California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations

One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing.

Public interest is a defence for not having obtained permission.

I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding.

> I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding.

Unless the recording was made by police, illegally-obtained evidence is often admissable if presented by non-law-enforcement.

> Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

> > California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations

> One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing.

That doesn't stop illegally obtained recordings from being presented as evidence, so long as the recording was not performed by law enforcement, at least in the United States.

Sure you might be open to civil liability but that's a different story.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

I'll tell of an actual situation that is different, but with similar elements.

Guy A arranges for presumed friend (pf) to provide transport for post surgery where benzodiazepines are administered along with local anesthetics. Guy A is still hesitant after 1st dose of benzo, so another is given and surgery proceeds. Afterwards, pf transports intoxicated guy A home, but for whatever reason, they agree to go elsewhere. Along the way, pf insists on purchasing liquor, which guy A feebly objects to. Liquor is purchased. Guy A and pf arrive at some home and drink liquor. Guy A is now drinking hard liquor on a double dose of surgical grade benzodiazepine and is concealing the effects poorly. Guy A, whose personality includes jovially natured hyperbole on occasion, is now saying abnormally odd things. Throughout this occasion, pf fails to inform guy A of recordings taking place in the car, home and on pf's phone. The following day, pf takes Guy A to retrieve vehicle from medical facility and informs guy A of his obnoxious behavior and deranged rhetoric on previous night. Guy A is a bit alarmed and skeptical, but regretfully accepts that in such a state, dumb things were said. Pf, however, does not share recordings with guy A, but does with friends, without disclosing context.

That really sucks. Unfortunately some shitty behavior might not be able to be legislated away if the alternative is severely impactful to the state of civil liberty.

We won't find a perfect law which only allows good behavior, but we can find one that catches the most bad behavior with the least impact on those with good behavior.

I highly doubt many judges in California or the Ninth circuit will look at this situation and blame the user, especially when they aren't the ones with access to the recordings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com