• 4am@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    27 days ago

    Even though I agree with recording police, the fact that your first thought went straight to “hidden camera for the purpose of recording without consent” makes this a nonstarter to begin with.

    • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      27 days ago

      Most states it’s legal to record audio without consent if you’re a party to the conversation, and it’s legal federally. Recording video in public is ok most everywhere.

      For me personally I went to jail for false accusations of assault. I had no choice but to interact with a very scheming and hostile individual for a long time and if I’d not recorded the conversations - on advice from my friend and attorney - I’d have likely not beat the charges. So yeah… I very much have a scenario in mind where these would have been helpful and there are certainly others who can probably relate.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        They weren’t talking about legality. They were talking about ethics. Recording people without consent is one thing, but doing it secretly is another. For police, I’d argue there’s implied consent as they’re public servants who are theoretically working for us. (I know, they’re working for the owner class, but they’re paid by taxpayers.) Anyone else though? I’d say that’s fairly ethically corrupt. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally it should be seen as a bad thing to do.

        • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          38 states believe if you’re a party to a conversation, you have a right to record it and I agree. I would have no problems if a state put restrictions on it, such as it not being legal to share unless the person was lying about or otherwise misrepresenting what was said, but I see no reason you shouldn’t be allowed to protect yourself.

          But 12 states do require two-party - technically all-party - concent. I won’t suggest there aren’t reasons that some states are like that but I’m sure glad I didn’t live in one of those because if so my recordings would have been inadmissible in court and I might have went to jail for quite a while.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            27 days ago

            Legality ≠ morality. 38 states believe you shouldn’t be prosecuted for the act. That is not a statement in what you should or should not do. I agree mostly with not making it illegal because, like I said, there are exceptions that make it something you should do. The law does not handle things like that well.

            This isn’t to say someone shouldn’t punch you in the face if you’re filming them doing something they believed to be private. Are you legally allowed to? Sure. Should society allow it, in all cases all the time? Fuck no, and there should be consequences for it.