[FlingPoo]

In Canada you can record someone (phone call, in person, etc) if just one party consents to the recording. In other words, if I'm a phone call with someone, even if there are several people on the call, it's NOT illegal for me to record them, as long as I'm a participant in the call. It's called the "one party consent" exception. I have no obligation to ask, or tell the others on the call that I'm recording.

[darth_avocado]

There are legitimate reasons for having one party consent legal. My experience with employer harassment has been that it’s extremely hard to prove discriminatory behavior without being able to record without consent.

[pvarangot]

In California you can record without consent if you have reasons to suspect a crime is going to be committed. It's not the most straightforward thing to get away with and you should work with a lawyer before you do it to be sure it will be accepted as evidence, but you can totally do it.

[logdap]

And this kind of thing, trouble with a boss/landlord/etc, is a lot more likely to personally impact the average person than any sort of PV-related scenario. Single party consent is a clear net positive for most people.

[morkalork]

It was interesting to see this fact crop up with the reddit vs. Appolo debacle.

[bob-09]

How did this apply? I admit I haven't been following the drama closely.

[NoZebra120vClip]

Good luck trying to record a phone call on any modern smartphone. They purposely make it nearly impossible, unless you want to use speakerphone and the analog hole.

[rstuart4133]

It must depend on region. In Australia the Google phone app has a [Record] button. My mother could use it. Google documents it here: https://support.google.com/phoneapp/answer/9803950?hl=en

I often use it.

[mcpackieh]

To be fair, the analog hole is effective and easy to 'exploit'.

[bleepblop]

It's actually not difficult to patch a recorder into your phone's output.

[noonething]

GrapheneOS

[thatguy0900]

This is the case in some us states as well

[eyelidlessness]

And while it might feel counterintuitive how obvious a good idea it is, it becomes a lot more intuitive when you consider the contrary implications. You can not only be a party to something without being able to demonstrate what you observed, but you can be a party to something where any convincing accusation about your own involvement is equally compelling to your own recount by default. Even if you don’t realize you’re a party to anything in particular.

Being able to record your own experience is a matter of basic autonomy and self defense. Being denied it is a gift to anyone with the power or motivation to exploit that.

Edit: I didn’t even look at who was involved in the case. I am not remotely surprised to find the ruling favors political opponents, and I’m not swayed by that either. If anything, it’s better for everyone if PV has to play by the same rules as anyone they’re interacting with.

[addisonl]

Surprisingly, most states (39) are one party consent: https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/one-party-consent-state...

[cvalka]

In most of the states

[starkparker]

Oregon, where this is filed, also has one-party consent on phone calls. Considering the plaintiff, this is mostly about hidden cameras and surreptitious recording in person.

[netheril96]

Do you use Android phone? Since iOS doesn't allow phone call recording without jailbreak.

[ale42]

There are lots of other types of phones besides mobile phones (nowadays, usually implying VoIP somewhere in most places, but some countries still have analog landlines, too). Assuming that all phone calls are either made with Android or iOS is reductive to say the least...

[moffkalast]

At this point I'm really wondering why anyone still uses iOS given the ever increasing list of things it can't do for completely arbitrary reasons.

[03JVO25KDI6BZV3]

This is a good reason to avoid phonecalls with Canadians