Hidden FBI Microphones Exposed In California (cbslocal.com) 205
An anonymous reader writes: "Federal agents are planting microphones to secretly record conversations," reports CBS Local, noting that for 10 months starting in 2010, FBI agents hid microphones inside light fixtures, and also at a bus stop outside the Oakland Courthouse, to record conversations without a warrant. "They put microphones under rocks, they put microphones in trees, they plant microphones in equipment," a security analyst and former FBI special agent told CBS Local. "I mean, there's microphones that are planted in places that people don't think about, because thats the intent!" Federal authorities are currently investigating fraud and bid-rigging charges against a group of real estate investors, and the secret recordings came to light when they were submitted as evidence. "Private communication in a public place qualifies as a protected 'oral communication'..." says one of the investor's lawyers, "and therefore may not be intercepted without judicial authorization."
Found a microphone -> cut it off? (Score:2)
Mic Hammer (Score:3, Interesting)
They can admit it, as this came to light as the article explains when the recordings were submitted as evidence.
It would be nice to have a crowdsourced google map however. Anyone know how to set one of those up?
Along those lines, california is a two-party consent state for wiretapped conversation [dmlp.org]-- this sounds like a zero-party consent program. Even in a public space, you can't record private conversations without both parties being aware and consenting to the practice. So I wonder if this involves some
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Mic Hammer (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to start throwing these bastards in jail. The fact they have a badge just makes the crime all the worse.
Re: (Score:2)
And also... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They put a microphone in my iPhone.
"Hey Siri. Call the local FBI Branch Office."
iPhone is not the only one (TVs, game systems, other smartphones). "Hey Siri" is disabled by default, and only works when the iPhone is plugged-in to a power source. People are griping about this, but it is a very reasonable way to implement the feature. It means that Siri is not listening to your every word, all day long, as you walk around.
Re: (Score:3)
When enabled, "Hey Siri" is always listening regardless if the device is connected to a power source or not on the latest iPhone models (6s and SE). This is possible without draining battery life because of the M9 motion coprocessor.
Duly noted. iPhone 6 here.
Re: (Score:2)
To some people, [twitter.com] that would be "put it back in my iPhone". (People who remove their internal mic, which I think is smart.)
"Protecting us from real estate investors" (Score:2, Insightful)
What this really means is that there is a group of people who are encroaching upon a wealthier and better-connected group of people's interest. And the FBI, serving its purpose, is being used as a tool to prevent competition.
Mod up the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends, do you live in Canada? If so, then protecting you from real estate investors is actually a strong possibility. [theglobeandmail.com] Very likely at that. [theglobeandmail.com] I can't really say for the US, but right now here in Canada with housing prices that have broken US bubble levels in quite a few big cities, when the crash comes it's going to be spectacular.
Re: (Score:2)
Housing prices are INSANE and a lot of that is owned by foreigners.
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it - especially when you hear your politicians tell you how wonderfully Canada and the Canadian economy is doing. Yet foreigners can come and buy up your country because they just happen to have more money than Canadians.
Re: (Score:2)
That is called capitalism. and it is why Canada, and the USA have a lot more money than other systems.
We spread resources around to those who can pay the most for them. It isn't the most efficient system but it is at least fair. In the sense that everyone is equal in who can do the buying. maybe not having the cash to buy, but that is another story.
Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" (Score:2, Interesting)
Capitalism isn't fair unless inheritances are banned. Otherwise you're left with a class of perpetually rich people that did nothing to earn their wealth. How is that "fair?"
Re: (Score:2)
You are not entitled to that wealth. In a fair system you are free to go out and create your own wealth.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, because the only possible way of raising it is by correctly choosing your parents.
I mean imagine, back in the the late middle ages, a townload of merchants clubbing together to hire a ship to bring spices & silk & stuff from foreign lands and then dividing up the profit. Unthinkable!
Re: (Score:2)
It was called a Joint Stock Venture, or, to use a modern term "Corporation".
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking really? Next you'll be telling me that I never went on a school trip to a medieval guild hall where they used to do exactly that!
Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" (Score:5, Insightful)
That is called capitalism. and it is why Canada, and the USA have a lot more money than other systems.
We spread resources around to those who can pay the most for them. It isn't the most efficient system but it is at least fair. In the sense that everyone is equal in who can do the buying. maybe not having the cash to buy, but that is another story.
It's not at all another story. Unless all participants begin the game from the same starting position, any definition of "fair" is going to be complete and utter nonsense. Of course, fair is not a possibility anyway. Some people are born with greater or lesser skills on one area or another. Some people are born with higher risk of heart disease. Some people are born with cleft palates. Some people are born with cancer.
Maybe your mama told you this: Life isn't fair. So maybe it's time for societies to stop clinging to a 5 year old's vision of fairness and instead decide what result is wanted, and how to best get that result.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe your mama told you this: Life isn't fair.
No, his mama told him he was a special snowflake, the smartest most beautiful boy in the world. Mama always made sure he got a prize, even when he came in last. Mama let him do whatever he wanted and told him that he could be or do anything in the world, he just had to close his eyes and wish hard enough. In short, life is extremely fair and you're just a racist bigoted nazi for saying it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the result that is worth pursuing is maximum freedom of any individual from any vollective and that all cooperation and collaboration needs to be voluntary. Minimize the oppression, maximize individual freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
Homelessness is constructively illegal in the U.S. So is farming on property you don't own. So yes, you are legally required to have at least some wealth, even if you somehow perfect breatharianism in spite of the laws of physics.
Are you willing to undo the enclosure?
Re: (Score:2)
So this is more of an "I got mine, screw you" sort of thing. Personal;ly, I'm fine in that department, but I recognize that there are plenty of people looking for but not finding work that pays enough for food, clothing, and shelter.
Undo the enclosure so they have a place to legally live and grow food and you might have a point. Otherwise, having money *IS* a requirement and so it amounts to coercion, which you claim to abhor.
Re: (Score:3)
You are living in some Randian dreamland, obviously. I never claimed that farming wasn't work or anything of the sort. I claimed that not everyone who is willing to work is able to find a job that pays enough to live on and that because of the surrounding laws, having sufficient wealth is necessary to comply with the law. Are you prepared to repeal all vagrancy laws?
But enough of trying to spoon feed you like a baby that doesn't want his strained carrots for one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Pop up? No. Have a job, then it gets categorically off-shored leaving them with little prospect just a few years short of retirement? Happens all the time. Get replaced by H1-Bs? All the time. Reasonably intelligent and ready to learn but no entry level jobs available? All the time. Newly minted degree in a useful field but nobody's hiring? All too common.
Been reading too much cyberpunk? In real life, a new skill takes more than $50 and plugging a memory stick into a socket at the back of your skull. It cos
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe your mama told you this: Life isn't fair. So maybe it's time for societies to stop clinging to a 5 year old's vision of fairness and instead decide what result is wanted, and how to best get that result.
We know what most people want, they want what's best for themselves. But selfish need is never a good argument for why society should or should not intervene. It's certainly possible that their wants not to be put in jail for a crime they didn't do share a common interest with society's interest in due process and the rule of law, but it could equally well be the opposite like the criminal's wants not to be put in jail for a crime they did do. What people want society to do doesn't mean it's what society ou
Re: (Score:2)
Canada, and the USA have a lot more debt than other systems.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet foreigners can come and buy up your country because they just happen to have more money than Canadians.
This is a good argument for reciprocity. If the government of the foreign buyers won't allow Canadians to own land in their country then Canada shouldn't allow them to own land in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap, factory-produced modular housing (and I don't mean trailer homes) was invented 20, or 40 years ago.
Look to your beloved people-loving politicians as to why you can't buy 4000 square food homes for $80k.
Re: (Score:2)
High housing prices are not the fault of the politicians, they are the fault of the people, especially the NIMBYs and BANANAs. It is astonishing how little new housing is being produced in major cities. People that live in a city get to vote, and have a vested interest in higher prices. People that want to live in that city, but can't afford to, don't get a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if Canada was a productive manufacturing country
Manufacturing is about as relevant as farming to wealth in the modern world. Sure, it's a non-trivial part of the economy, just like farming, but it's an odd thing to focus on.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's a non-trivial part of the economy
Aha, so if it is a trivial part of the economy
Umm, yeah.
Anyhow, manufacturing mostly all robots, only about 10% of people work in it, and at least the US has plenty of it (never researched Canada). Can't get by without food either, but it takes less than 5% of people working in the field.
Just because we need something doesn't mean it takes a lot of people, or a large portion of the economy, to provide it.
Re: (Score:2)
And so you're taking all this rage out on the poor people
Are you replying to the right post?
. Oh, I guess this is the "entitlement" talking, nobody should be required to give them a job, they should just make one out of thin air on their own, right?
Every job comes from the same place. A human sees something that another human needs, and finds a way to provide it at a profit. Both humans now have more than they used to. You act like these some group of people keeping the Job Fairy in a cage, or building a wall around the Job Tree or something. Someone has to make that job "out of thin air"; there's no other place jobs come from.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada used to be a productive manufacturing country, and people were wealthy because of it. In the 90's the federal government of the day decided to shit all over the manufacturing sector and a lot of places simply closed up or went out of country where they weren't being crushed under environmental regs/taxes/etc. These days the provincial government in Ontario(once the main manufacturing hub) is doing the same thing with punishing environmental taxes, high electricity prices and so on. When a company
Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" (Score:4, Informative)
As a Canadian still unable to afford a house without signing my life away to debt for the next 30 years, I welcome the burst. Housing prices are INSANE and a lot of that is owned by foreigners.
Gets worse then that actually. A lot of those houses especially in metro Vancouver/Victoria and Toronto are empty. These people are using real estate to sink cash into expecting either a huge economic crash or believing that there is no limit to making money in the real estate market.
My parents bought in during the very early 1980's, and I know a couple of police constables who bought in then. Then the inflation hit, mortgages became impossible because of 19% interest rates. But people who had COLA tied to their contracts were suddenly in the money and were able to buy two, three, four houses and flip them. Taking a 20-30k house and selling it for 90-150k. Really though, I've been expecting the bubble here in Canada to pop for the last 4 years the situation is very similar to what happened in the US prior to the 2006-2008 bubble pop, but it hasn't hit yet. I expect it more has to do with the current levels of debt, they're not quite at where they were in the US, but if the number of insta-loan(aka legal loan sharks) places popping up over the last 3-4 years is any indication, it won't be too many more years.
Speculation is a symptom of wealth inequity (Score:3, Interesting)
The 1% now has so much wealth at their command they don't know what to do with it, which fuels these speculative bubbles.
If the middle classes had this money instead, they'd be buying houses and living in them--arguably much healthier for the market than the very rich bidding up these assets because they've got nothing better to do with their money.
It's just another of the ways that the 1% is going to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg--the middle class--via their own unfettered insane greed. Becau
Re: (Score:2)
That makes no sense. If you are expecting an economic crash, you don't invest in property, you buy gold.
Of course it doesn't make any sense, but that's what's happening anyway. Lot of the "new money" are going to lose their shirt over it when it happens too, the parallels are striking on that between the 70 and dotcom crashes and people buying into a high priced real estate market thinking that it was a safe bet.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Canadian still unable to afford a house without signing my life away to debt for the next 30 years, I welcome the burst. Housing prices are INSANE and a lot of that is owned by foreigners.
Couldn't agree more. I don't know about Canada but buy to let mortgages are killing it in the UK. Bunch of twats buying up loads of property, taking them off the market then putting them back on at higher cost so they can not only basically get a free house but profit from it too.
Charge them with a crime (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI is doing it, so it must be legal... /sarcasm
It's time that these abuses of rights were charged as criminal offences. Sadly this requires an organisation with the ability to investigate the FBI and bring charges. The US constitution gives that power to a grand jury, but it would be a brave prosecutor who enpanelled one to do it.Oh well - here's hoping...
Re:Charge them with a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Very much THIS!
Re: (Score:2)
Audio recordings without the permission of all participants is illegal in many states. It's a misdemeanor in some. In California, and only in California, it's a felony.
All the talk over the last few years about various wingnut states making it a felony for federal law enforcement to enforce federal gun laws, and the more realistic chance we have to prosecute FBI agents for doing their jobs illegally come from California.
Not that it'll happen. California is run by California Democrats, who love overreaching
Re: (Score:3)
It is entirely reasonable to assume that devoting resources to one thing means that less resources are available for other things. This is the entire basis for Obama's stance on immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, that's not how the laws are being written - Houston's "anyone can use either bathroom, just shut up" law is the pattern.
The Overton Window (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Overton Window (Score:5, Insightful)
...Now the cameras record us on the streets and nobody minds.
speak for yourself...It isn't that 'nobody minds' it's more 'we can't do a bloody thing about it'. Big, big difference.
Re:The Overton Window (Score:4, Insightful)
.It isn't that 'nobody minds' it's more 'we can't do a bloody thing about it'. Big, big difference.
It's not a matter of "can't do anything about it" but "won't do anything about it".
There's always civil disobedience as in smashing these cameras and microphones. Sure, you might go to jail for a while if caught, but so what? The jail is being built around you. You're going to be there whether or not you fight. The thing is, if you fight, the jail time (if caught) will be temporary, if you don't fight, it will be permanent and inescapable.
"Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war
for a lead role in a cage?"
- Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here
Freedom is not "free". Hashtags don't do crap but massage your conscience. Making it too costly and impractical to implement and maintain for little to no return works.
Strat
Monkeywrenching them (Score:2)
Is there any way to electronically monkeywrench cameras? Some way to fuck with automatic gain control so that the image isn't any good, some kind of discreet light source that could be aimed in their direction or omnidirectionally if you didn't know where it was?
Smashing them physically seems kind of counterproductive, as it has a lot of risk and may result in the camera being moved or hardened in a way that makes smashing impractical. Plus monitoring systems may flag a down camera, especially an IP one.
I
Re:Monkeywrenching them (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually they will have a "scramble suit" (see "A Scanner Darkly", Philip K. Dick). Technology transfer from the military (i.e. bucks to be made).
Re: (Score:2)
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Do you know that a lot of people refused to enter the building or take jobs there because they thought it was a violation to be recorded without their consent (banks notwithstanding)?
how do you know that?
Re: (Score:3)
Camera's recording us in public is not an issue. You are in public.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
"Good, we need to find those Communists."
The red scare - http://www.history.com/topics/... [history.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between private property and a public sidewalk.
Western liberal democracy? (Score:3, Interesting)
This kind of BS is behaviour I'd expect from an Eastern Bloc dictatorship rather than a Western liberal democracy. I say that reluctantly because invoking East Germany or the USSR is usually a sign of hyperbole. But ... what other countries plant hidden mics in trees to track citizens rather than aliens?
Re:Western liberal democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that plenty of people, if you told them that, would be like "Yay, we sure stuck it to them thar krauts! Number one!".
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that plenty of people, if you told them that, would be like "Yay, we sure stuck it to them thar krauts! Number one!".
Actually, for the last week or two, all of Eastern Europe has been mourning the 70th Anniversary of the defeat of Hitler, for which they paid a very heavy price.
It is in some ways very fortunate that Hitler was stupid enough to open up a second, Eastern front in this gigantic war – by back-stabbing the 20th Century's other most heinous monsters – Stalin.
Ground troops and tanks, mostly. Sieges of major cities for two, three, or more years. More deaths were from starvation than from bullets
Re: (Score:2)
Fail. Nothing really to do with WW2, you idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Fail. Nothing really to do with WW2, you idiot.
You missed my point entirely. I was responding to the tone of the reply just above mine:
Hognoxious: I suspect that plenty of people, if you told them that, would be like "Yay, we sure stuck it to them thar krauts! Number one!".
That is, I was noting that many people are not jumping up-and-down shouting "Yay" about Hitler (Hobnoxious: "... we sure stuck it to [the] krauts!"). Hobnoxious was the one to bring in WW2, and at a very inappropriate time.
And to reply to your statement of in-applicability of WW2 to this thread: I agree. It was primarily after WW2 that the neighbor-spying, Stasi, citizenry-spying, and all the rest occurred.
Very Interesting Legally Speaking (Score:3)
What they are doing is quite interesting legally speaking. So what are the realistic expectations of privacy in a public space, why would a sound recording differ from a video recording. The second point, the fine point about randomly recording events at a specific location, rather than specifically targeting an individual, does that public location have an expectation of privacy. The legal fine point, you sit in a public space with a smart phone and make a call, does someone sitting close by have an expectation that you will stop using your phone so as not accidentally capture and transmit their communications with someone else.
So cheeky but not really illegal as they are continuously recording a public space and have no control over who wanders into it and what they do or say in it, no different to a video security camera, so add in a microphone and is a security camera that monitors public space illegal.
Police have a duty to monitor public space and citizens had a right to monitor police in that public space. A fixed microphone at a location versus a mobile one tracking a specific individual. By happen stance when recording bird song in a public park I recorded two people plotting a murder, keep in mind the recording was purposeful but not targeted at a specific individual, except if you take into account the private communications of those birds. So provide that recording to the police or destroy for invading the privacy of those individuals plotting the murder, so which is the greater crime, invading someone's privacy or accessory before the fact to a crime, specifically in this case a murder.
Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking (Score:5, Insightful)
> So what are the realistic expectations of privacy in a public space,
The legal limitations seem to depend very much on the state. Unless the records were of people personally aware that they were being recorded, or at least one party was aware of the recording, I cannot see how the FBI's recordings of _personal_ conversations meets even the minimum requirements of states wehre a single party can record without the knowledge of the other party. In states where both parties must consent to record a personal conversation, I don't see any way these recordings could have been legal.
If there were public speeches being recorded, it would be very different. But the bus stop outside a court house is a prime place to record personal conversations of plaintiffs or defendants, or their attorneys, in legal matters. It could be clear violation of attorney-client privilege if they recorded such conversations. I'm frankly unsurprised that the .FBI committed such acts, they've repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and willingness to violate the law to pursue "big fish". What startles me is that they revealed the surveillance in court: anyone who's ever discovered criminal violations, or workplace improprieties through accidental or deliberate illegal surveillance knows to gather other evidence legally, now that you know where to dig for that evidence, and use the legally obtained information for termination or prosecution. That is what "confidential informants" and "anonymous tips" are often used for, to provide plausible deniability of criminal activity by investigating officers or manipulative personnel managers.
Re: (Score:2)
> So what are the realistic expectations of privacy in a public space,
The legal limitations seem to depend very much on the state. Unless the records were of people personally aware that they were being recorded, or at least one party was aware of the recording, I cannot see how the FBI's recordings of _personal_ conversations meets even the minimum requirements of states wehre a single party can record without the knowledge of the other party. In states where both parties must consent to record a personal conversation, I don't see any way these recordings could have been legal.
They are the feds and there laws and rules trump a state's. If they are allowed to do so by federal law or regulation then there isn't a lot a state can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the federal standard is "one party consent." California, however, is "all parties consent," and it's the only state where it's a felony to violate that requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, look! An adult posting on slashdot!
Clearly, the opinions of a defense attorney are not to be taken as established law as TFA attempts to do. We're clearly in a gray area here that will only be defined as lawful/unlawful in a decade or two when a case makes it up to the USSC. Or who knows, congress may actually come out with a law giving clear guidance... Yeah, I know, I jest, I jest...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed... http://www.newscientist.com/ar... [newscientist.com] ...
Earlier this year, Microflown's researchers discovered by chance that the device can hear, record or stream an ordinary conversation from as far away as 20 metres, says Hans-Elias de Bree, the firm's co-founder. Signal-processing software filters out unwanted noise like wind or traffic commotion. Work is now underway to increase the range.
"Not only could this work, it has worked," says Ron Barrett-Gonzalez at the University of Kansas. He has helped boost the se
Re: (Score:2)
There is a legal distinction between video an audio recordings. It may not make sense to you, hell it may not make sense to the people who passed the laws, but it's there.
Re: (Score:2)
public space is public space. It doesn't matter if anyone is there or not. You do not have control over what is in the space so you as a target of the recording cannot assume no one is listening.
Re: (Score:3)
The law doesn't allow recording without permission in public spaces, it allows recoding without permission in places where there is no expectation of privacy. A subtle difference, perhaps, but on that, in California, can mean the difference between a felony conviction and selling the recording to the 10:00 news for five figures.
There are WiFi Chips with Arduino and Mics... (Score:2)
You know...welcome to the brave new world where EVERYONE can listen to ANYONE.
If I were an FBI agent on the take... (Score:3)
Which makes such evidence inadmissible...
If I were an FBI agent promised a decent reward for making the lawsuit go away, maybe, I would've thought up a scheme like this... I'd demonstrate the zeal and the willingness to bend the rules (and the Constitution) — and the charges would be dismissed because the primary evidence will be thrown out.
I may get fired for the failure, maybe even reprimanded for the rule-bending, but not prosecuted for the bribery, which no one will even suspect...
Re: (Score:3)
>Which makes such evidence inadmissible...
That's what 'parallel construction' is for.
Re: (Score:2)
Which they somehow forgot to do and went for the hail-mary of telling the court "uhhh, we just recorded everything everyone said and hoped we heard something good"
I would be tempted to agree with mi on this, but honestly after seeing the behavior of the FBI with respect to Apple, it seems that the current game plan at the agency is to just beat their head on walls until someone installs a door where they want it. I'm sure that they hope the outcome of this case will be that they can go to the public and te
A tad frightening (Score:2)
And in Dinners (Score:2)
ftg (Score:2)
This should be front page national news (Score:2)
BUT we've become the frogs in the slowing warming pot of water it seems.
THis is why I like the NSA (Score:2)
Because it is SO DAMN HARD to get it in the first place. However, where I have a REAL issue is that FBI, Police, CIA, and DOD all have weapons, and all sorts of political will be behind them.
OTOH, NSA, does NOT carry weapons, other than for personal protection. NSA's job is just to acquire intel as well as safeguard our systems (which they are failing on the later). NSA's intel is used for national security, as
Re:I used this as a ridiculous example (Score:5, Funny)
I was being ridiculous to prove a point - but then I read this!
They were listening and you gave them an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the cognitive dissonance is that it's absolutely 100% legal to record a cop on his beat with your cellphone - even surreptitiously - in a public place, but it's illegal for the FBI to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the people arrested for not getting the police officers to consent to being recorded. [ku.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
The lack of warrant, or other check on power is the objectionable part of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.
In the above you/your are presumed to be plural, but it may be more entertaining to include the singular aspect as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I can reasonably assume that no one is eavesdropping on a conversation I have while walking down an empty street. It is therefore illegal (in a two party consent state) to record the conversation without both me and the person/people I am talking to agreeing to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually a huge leap, if someone's walking behind me, when I look behind me to see if someone's listening in, someone will be there.
Re: (Score:2)
First off police are public servants they have less rights to privacy while on duty or otherwise using the privileges/responsibilities that come with the job. Second there are legal differences between covert and obvious recordings, if I shove a mic in your face you're free to stop talking and insist it go away before continuing thats far different than clandestine monitoring. CA in particular is a 2 party state requiring that both parties are informed of any recording, that standard is for anytime it's r
Re: (Score:2)
CA is a 2 party consent state, meaning not only do both parties have to be informed, they have to agree to be recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's a felony if you don't, making California unique.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no expectation of privacy in a public place."
There is an expectation of privacy in a public bathroom, do we apply the same rules to all public spaces? If I communicate in a public area that I would normally expect to be private, is that communication protected? This is something the courts need to decide.
One thing that isn't of question is disclosure of private conversation to third parties allows for damages to be awarded to the injured party. Someone needs to sue the FBI.