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.