Like for example, apparently in a one-party-consent state, you can only record someone’s voice as long as one of the people consents. In this case it would be yourself. Why would this rule exist if of course you’re gonna always consent to it. You’re asking yourself for consent to record someone else?
Or is this just so that you can bring it up to someone IN CASE they don’t want you recording their voice but you have every right to.
Or is it exploiting a loophole?
In: 0
It means that conversation involving you can be recorded but conversations not involving cannot. That leads to wiretapping laws. For example, you can record your own phone calls but if you record a phone call between two unconsenting parties, it is illegal. In single party consent states it is assumed that if you hold a conversation with someone it can be recorded.
It protects people from illegal wiretapping or eavesdropping. You have to actually be participating in the conversation, a *party* to the conversation, to record it. You cannot just record someone else’s conversation in private without the consent of someone who *is* actually involved in the conversation.
So yes, if I am in a state with one party consent law and I call you (and you’re in the same state) then I can record the conversation and that’s fine. But if I call you and someone happens to hear the conversation and record it, that’s not fine.
It’s another way of accomplishing a “no recorded eavesdropping” rule. In a one-party consent system, you cannot just drop a recorder and leave the room without consent of someone in the room… you would not be a party to the conversation. If you stay, then you’re a party.
For phone conversations, this means the same: no bugging a phone indiscriminately… can only be for conversations for which someone on the phone has consented, and if you’re on the phone then you’re good to go.
Latest Answers