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’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