The punishment for recording will be insignificant compared to the punishment for the person you recorded. That is unless illegal recordings are inadmissible in court.
Fun fact, law enforcement is bound by the fourth amendment against performing illegal searches or seizures. Any evidence gained from “the fruit of the poisonous tree” is generally inadmissible unless they can prove they could have found it through other legal means. This in no way prevents them from using evidence gained through illegal means and provided to them outside of direct law enforcement action!
As an aside, the fruit from the poisoned tree has long been admitted into evidence through several pathways. One such end run is called parallel construction, they get illegal information, then find a legal way they can use it in court.
But they often don’t have to, long long ago the scotus said the evidence could be admitted if the police thought they were following the law. So they can plead stupid.
Nevermind the requirements that warrants, if they even bother with them, specify what they are looking for, before the 80s if they were looking for guns but found drugs that were not listed on the warrant, it was inadmissible, but now anything they find they can use.
If you are rich and have a lot of money you might be able to fight some of that, but for almost everyone, you are fucked.
Worth noting that hand written/typed notes are admissible in court. It can be handy for he-said-she-said situations, because the party with the notes nearly always wins when the other party can’t back up their side.
Depends on the jurisdiction if you need two-party consent to record.
Who cares, do it anyway. They lie and cheat, so can we.
The punishment for recording will be insignificant compared to the punishment for the person you recorded. That is unless illegal recordings are inadmissible in court.
Fun fact, law enforcement is bound by the fourth amendment against performing illegal searches or seizures. Any evidence gained from “the fruit of the poisonous tree” is generally inadmissible unless they can prove they could have found it through other legal means. This in no way prevents them from using evidence gained through illegal means and provided to them outside of direct law enforcement action!
As an aside, the fruit from the poisoned tree has long been admitted into evidence through several pathways. One such end run is called parallel construction, they get illegal information, then find a legal way they can use it in court.
But they often don’t have to, long long ago the scotus said the evidence could be admitted if the police thought they were following the law. So they can plead stupid.
Nevermind the requirements that warrants, if they even bother with them, specify what they are looking for, before the 80s if they were looking for guns but found drugs that were not listed on the warrant, it was inadmissible, but now anything they find they can use.
If you are rich and have a lot of money you might be able to fight some of that, but for almost everyone, you are fucked.
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse… unless you are the law… then you can be as ignorant of the law as you want!”
Yeah, I don’t think all these big tech companies with their telemetry and
adwarespyware are following those laws, so why should we?You have millions of dollars to try fighting the case? They do.
You have a point, and I hate it!
Worth noting that hand written/typed notes are admissible in court. It can be handy for he-said-she-said situations, because the party with the notes nearly always wins when the other party can’t back up their side.
Easy, have your AI transcription agent be a third party that can consent so you have a majority! (/s… sorta)