Alright you students, you intelligent individuals..... I am going to pose you a question that I do not have the answer to that is really quite relevant in today's legal society. So let us go with a scenario of recording an individual without their knowledge. Now, from what I understand it to be, there must be at least one person of the party in knowledge of a audio/video recording of the conversation or the interaction. There is also the other opininion that both must be aware that a recording is in play (i.e. "this phone call can be recorded" blah blah blah) or in essence the infamous "beep" during a recorded phone call conversation.
Now that we have the initial generic background set up established (the conversation in some fashion is being recorded) comes the "make you think" question.
Can a person wear a shirt that says "I Record Everything" be enough to validate a secret recording if worn in eyesight? I understand that this will not work over a telephone conversation, but let us assume it is a person to person conversation on the street. One person is wearing the shirt labeled "I Record Everything" and the other is not. The person that is wearing the shirt is actually recording (whatever they deem necessary) through a device on their person. Question: Is this admissable in court? Is it actually valid? Does this shirt serve as valid notificiation that the conversation or the interaction is being recorded and that it would be admissable in court? GOOD QUESTION. I am not sure I have an answer to this and am extremely interested in various points of view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is that like the kid that where's the FBI shirt or hat as a joke? Everyone thinks the Record Everything shirt is a joke so people will still talk to him so he can record everything?
ReplyDeleteGreat, something else to watch out for. ;)
Interesting post.. I believe that state law may control here in terms of what "consent" means for recording and it matters where that conversation happens. Generally, as I understand it, you need all party consent in California. Seems to me that most people would think it is just a t-shirt so that would likely mean that no real consent would be given. In a public venue, however, the question may be whether there is an expectation of privacy for the conversation. Of course, it is more complicated in real life. Check out this article about some of the issues:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california/california-recording-law
strong argument, well done. While I cant clame to have any leagal expertice, I'll give you my opinion: I think that it's not, atleast it shouldnt be. Now it's one thing ifthey are carying a camcorder in the open but unless the recorder actually says "see this shirt? I mean it, I'm recording you right now" then the intent of the person cannot be confermed. the other two problems are whether the recorded person can read the messege or if the concent is implied if the subject is not raised in conversation.
ReplyDeletewow. how did you even think up something like that? haha ok well i guess i know how...but I wouldn't know how to answer it thats for sure. I might be pissed if someone recorded a conversation and the only consent i had given was that i read his shirt... haha oh wait...if you cant read does that mean you didnt actually give your consent? that would be my defense.. haha
ReplyDelete