That's not legal as evidence in many states. Both people must be aware that they are being recorded or the recording is illegal.

Perhaps it's a sign that it should be changed.

Historically, recording/taping conversations was a "spec-ops" act against someone, which could be only used by those in power to abuse/blackmail people, and it made sense to restrict it.

Nowadays, recording devices are ubiquitous, and easily available even to, say, poor disadvantaged teenagers, and the majority of their use actually seems to be for the "little guy" to protect against abuse by obtaining evidence of it. IMHO we should consider a way (details, conditions, restrictions, etc) to make it generally legal to make recordings of things that are said to you or done to you.

Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's OK to ignore due process. The NSA records lots of things on a daily basis but that doesn't mean it's all valid in a court of law.

I think if a person made a complaint to law enforcement, they could get a waiver - or maybe even a court order - to record a specific person for a specific time for a specific reason. Maybe that should be easier, but I don't think the process should be any less regulated.

Due process is for government and law enforcement; However, gathering evidence in advance to protect yourself should be [made] legal. An abused teenager should be able to record evidence and have it be valid in a court of law, to prevent it being dismissed as he-said/she-said without evidence. If you feel threatened by someone, you should be allowed to record your interactions without their permission (and likely knowledge), so that if violence occurs, the perpetrator gets punished - again, unlike a majority of such cases where nothing happens due to lack of evidence. In places where local police is corrupt or prejudiced, recording your interactions (again, without giving them ability to prevent it) is the best way to fix the problem. The same goes for sexual harassment and discrimination cases.

The whole point is that you should be able to record now, and handle any permission/admissability later; and you shouldn't require cooperation of government beforehand - it's likely for police or court to say that your case is not important enough for them; but it's not a valid reason to restrict your ability to protect yourself.

What you intentionally say to me isn't your private secret anymore - if I had the right to hear it, then I have the right to remember it and to repeat that to any court; and I should have the right to remember it perfectly&permanently on a durable medium, and hand at to any court as valid evidence. In short, it makes sense to require permission of a participant in recorded conversation, but not all participants.

This is significant. I have actually thought through the ramifications of such a recording, and since in many states it would not be legal as evidence, I've concluded that it's not useful if one's desired avenue of recourse for harassment is legal. On the other hand, if one is willing to go for some sort of "nuclear option" (with high self-risk if in a two-party consent state) one could just post it somewhere online. We have seen examples of such postings and their effects recently...

Legal evidence is not the same standard as publishing online.

And there are states, such as Liberia, where sexual harassment laws aren't applicable. Just because you live in a medieval jurisdiction doesn't mean the rest of us are.

If this is in California, would a tape recorded by one party without consent of both parties be admissible in court? I was under the impression that California was two party consent.

>Is it that hard to download a recording app, like the aclu police recording app, and have the most water tight sexual harassment suit ever?

So you're suggesting the solution to sexual harassment is for women to go deeper into an already uncomfortable situation and gather evidence for the 'nuclear option' that can potentially ruin the careers of both parties? That's complete nonsense. Nobody wants to hire somebody they think might sue them. Since women who file big sexual harassment suits face serious repercussions in the job market later, it's usually an option of last resort.

If someone, anyone, asked me to suck their dick or clit, yes, I would go for the nuclear option. You have to be a really well beaten down cubicle slave to think that someone trying to own your body outright like that isn't grounds for destroying their life.