• its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Jessie what the fuck are you talking about?

      1. Consent for recording private conversations is when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. AKA NOT IN PUBLIC. In most cases having the conversation in a public place means you no longer need consent to record, even if the conversation is hushed or private otherwise.
      2. Voyeurism laws apply when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. AKA NOT IN PUBLIC. In fact it’s quite the opposite if you’re in public. instead of the voyeur being charged you would be charged with some form of indecent exposure or something worse.

      Those protections don’t exist when the person being observed is in public. Because in America there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. There are very few exceptions to that by matter of law.

      • borkborkbork@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        it’s really not that simple. I love how certain you are that you know what you’re talking about lol.

        https://www.gotaprob.com/signals/is-it-illegal-to-record-someone-with-meta-glasses

        https://www.recordinglaw.com/smart-glasses-recording-laws/

        “Silent video in a public place is usually lawful because people there have no reasonable expectation of privacy. But capturing the audio of a private conversation is an interception under federal and state wiretap law. In an all-party-consent state, recording that conversation without everyone’s permission can be a crime even if you are standing in public.”

        twelve states require two parties to consent.

        re: voyeurism laws - where did you read that? because it’s STATED NOWHERE IN THE LAW. You can be hit with voyeurism for recording in public, if it violates those rules, that’s one of the reasons the law exists.