Crthuky

I asked this question in the law site, but I was told it has more to do with politics (same question in the law site).

Let's assume A and B have a discussion about a business deal and A will record the conversation without B's knowledge. Later on, they have a disagreement that takes them to court. Let's also assume that the recording is long enough to be unambiguous and can't be taken out of context.

In some states, B should consent to the recording but I fail to understand the motivation behind that law:

• A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.


• If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.


• One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.


• A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.

I can't understand the motivation of 2 consents at all. Can someone explain it to me?

If I know you are recording me, I may speak differently and use clearer language. If I don't, I may be more likely to use ambiguous language that can be taken out of context. Consider the case of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Their goal is to surreptitiously record people doing things some people may think are bad and discredit them for political purposes. As it turns out, selective editing of the recordings caused a massive uproar on a number of issues when in fact the context surrounding the recorded exchanges was sometimes hotly disputed after editing, and in some cases demonstrably false.

Numerous undercover investigations by would-be reporters at factory farms attempted to highlight the conditions of animals at those places, inspiring a wave of Ag-gag laws in some states and other anti-whistleblower legislation. In some cases they were successful at being truthful and highlighting abuse, in others they were only successful at hurting their cause since legislators in those areas weren't convinced of the recordings' veracity given how they were obtained.

Having two-party consent to record interactions means everyone knows a recording exists. If I know a recording exists of me, I would be more likely to request a full unedited copy so that I may protect myself from people who only wish to further their own agenda regardless of what I actually say. If someone has to lie or be deceitful in order to obtain a recording, how can viewers trust that what they see or hear is the full context? A single surreptitious recording can be used to imply a large scale conspiracy and discredit an entire organization, when in reality there could just be a single bad actor.

_{Note - this issue is distinct and separate from so-called "ambush journalism", since generally in those cases large lumbering cameramen are a giveaway that the target is being recorded.}

To pick a two-party-consent jurisdiction at random, let us consider California, USA.

In 1967, the California Legislature enacted a broad, protective invasion-of-privacy statute in response to what it viewed as a serious and increasing threat to
the confidentiality of private communications resulting from then recent advances
in science and technology that had led to the development of new devices and
techniques for eavesdropping upon and recording such private communications.

This was done by means of Assembly Bill 860, which became Penal Code §§ 630-637.2. In a statement by Assemblyman Jesse Marvin "Big Daddy" Unruh, before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the bill was so described:

The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the
free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free
and civilized society. The Legislature by this chapter intends to
protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.

This would suggest that the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation is a concern for privacy.