U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracking lawsuit

Re:U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracki... by fny on Monday March 22, 2021 @07:15PM (#26548757)

In most states and federally, one party consenting to a recording is sufficient, so in those cases it doesn't matter that you, the visitor, give consent.

In states with two party consent laws, I think you're required to have signage or other explicit message that declares recording is in progress (this may be different for residential properties): a Ring logo may not be sufficient.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracki... by lotsofpulp on Monday March 22, 2021 @08:21PM (#26549337)

There’s usually an option to not record audio in the software because in the states that require consent of all parties, audio recording is usually still not allowed without explicit consent of everyone in a non public location even if a notice is placed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracki... by nerdponx on Monday March 22, 2021 @09:04PM (#26549680)

What about a 3rd party? You give consent to the homeowner, but do you also give consent to Amazon?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracki... by thaumasiotes on Tuesday March 23, 2021 @12:04AM (#26550971)

One party is sufficient. Whether you give consent -- to anyone -- doesn't matter. Your interlocutor is free to consent anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracki... by LinuxBender on Monday March 22, 2021 @10:01PM (#26550123)

AFAIK there is only one state with single party consent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Facebook appeal in user tracki... by kube-system on Monday March 22, 2021 @10:06PM (#26550155)

FWIW: https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/

[ Parent | on HN ]