Big tech lobbying gutted a bill that would ban recording without consent

Re:Big tech lobbying gutted a bill that would ban recording ... by 3xblah on Sunday April 14, 2019 @08:27AM (#19658992)

I think what you mean to say is that you live in an "all party consent" jurisdiction. "Two party consent" would imply that if there are more than two parties then only the consent of two of them is needed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big tech lobbying gutted a bill that would ban recording ... by vageli on Sunday April 14, 2019 @12:10PM (#19660192)

This is not correct. For example,

> Germany is a two-party consent state—telephone recording without the consent of the two or, when applicable, more, parties is a criminal offence according to Sec. 201 of the German Criminal Code—violation of the confidentiality of the spoken word.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_law...

This is similar to how the word "assault", to the layperson, implies a physical element, but to the law it does not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Big tech lobbying gutted a bill that would ban recording ... by 3xblah on Sunday April 14, 2019 @06:32PM (#19662086)

In the first case the term "two party" is describing a defence (consent). Defences may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so the term might be useful in highlighting those differences.

In the second case the term ("assault") is the offence itself. It is not a term that is being used to highlight differences in elements or defences amongst jurisdictions.

Being accurate in the first case makes sense, regardless of the audience.

[ Parent | on HN ]