【Hacker News搬运】未经执法部门同意，可以记录与执法部门的电话交谈

hackernews

Title: Phone conversations with law enforcement can be recorded without their consent

未经执法部门同意，可以记录与执法部门的电话交谈

Text:

Url: https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/phone-conversations-with-law-enforcement-can-be-recorded-without-their-consent-court-says-36640808

很抱歉，我尝试抓取指定网址的内容时遇到了问题，因为网站返回了403状态码，这意味着请求被禁止。因此，我无法直接分析或总结网页内容。如果您有其他网址或需要帮助，请告诉我，我会尝试其他方式来提供帮助。

Post by: jdmark

Comments:

gamepsys: I think this is an interesting decision for a two party consent state. Typically in a two party consent state all private conversations cannot be recorded unless both parties agree to have it recorded. This means it is illegal to secretly record a private conversation. However, the judge ruled that “conversations concerned matters of public business, occurred while the deputies were on duty, and involved phones utilized for work purposes.” have no expectation of privacy.As someone living in a two party consent state that is not Florida I am curious if this precedent will carry weight in my home state.

gamepsys: 我认为，对于两党同意的州来说，这是一个有趣的决定。通常情况下，在双方同意的状态下，除非双方同意录制，否则所有私人对话都不能录制。这意味着秘密录制私人对话是违法的。然而，法官裁定，“对话涉及公共事务，发生在副手值班期间，涉及用于工作目的的电话。”没有隐私要求 作为一个生活在非佛罗里达州的两党同意州的人，我很好奇这个先例是否会在我的家乡产生影响。

aftbit: > The same day as the court’s ruling, DeSantis signed into law two bills affecting law enforcement in Florida. Two judges on the panel that issued the ruling Friday were DeSantis appointees.> One new law makes it illegal after a person has been warned to approach first responders or remain within 25 feet while they are performing a legal duty if the intent is to interfere, threaten or harass them. The new law doesn’t prevent people from recording law enforcement but can require them to move 25 feet back, which can make it more difficult.> The other requires that citizen review boards in Florida – intended to provide independent oversight of law enforcement actions – be re-established so that members are appointed by a sheriff or police chief and that at least one member be a retired law enforcement officer.I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of the officer. For example, if they're recording during windy conditions and need to hear what the officer says. I also wonder how the "intent" will be interpreted by courts. Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs.The second law is just a straightforward neutering of citizen review boards.

aftbit: &gt；在法院作出裁决的同一天，德桑蒂斯签署了两项影响佛罗里达州执法的法案，使之成为法律。周五发布裁决的小组中有两名法官是德桑蒂斯任命的 &gt；一项新法律规定，如果一个人被警告在履行法律职责时接近急救人员或停留在25英尺以内，意图干扰、威胁或骚扰他们，则该行为是非法的。新法律并没有阻止人们记录执法情况，但可以要求他们向后移动25英尺，这会使执法更加困难 &gt；另一项要求重新设立佛罗里达州的公民审查委员会，旨在对执法行动进行独立监督，以便成员由警长或警察局长任命，至少有一名成员是退休执法人员 我想知道第一个是否经得起宪法审查。我想，有许多受《第一修正案》保护的录音目的可能要求录音机距离警官25英尺以内。例如，如果它们；在刮风的情况下重新录音，需要听警官说什么。我还想知道；意图”；将由法院进行解释。可能以一种对低地球轨道最有利的方式 第二部法律只是对公民审查委员会进行了简单的阉割。

modeless: Apparently all that's required to make recording a phone call legal is to play a 3 second recorded message saying "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes" because that's what every corporation does. They don't ask, or verify consent. Why can't I do that on my phone? I will happily have my phone say "This call may be recorded" before every call I pick up, so that every call can be recorded.

modeless: 显然，所有这些；使记录电话呼叫合法化所要求的是播放3秒的记录消息；这个呼叫可以出于质量和训练目的而被记录下来；因为；这是每家公司都做的事。他们不；不要询问或核实同意。为什么可以；我不能在手机上这样做吗？我会很高兴地让我的手机说“；这个呼叫可以被记录为“；在我接到每个电话之前，这样每个电话都可以被记录下来。

leggomuhgreggo: >law enforcement officers performing their official duties can be secretly recorded because they have no expectation of privacy.Sounds about right.I was worried that this referred to personal conversations and was about to say "dang have we gone too far?" but yeah this makes sense.Probably goes without saying but — we don't want to condemn/bastardize/immiserate the entire institution...

leggomuhgreggo: &gt；执法人员执行公务时可能会被秘密记录，因为他们对隐私没有任何期望 听起来不错 我担心这涉及到个人对话，正要说“；该死，我们走得太远了吗&quot；但这是有道理的 也许不用说，但是——我们不；我不想谴责；bastardize；使整个机构陷入瘫痪。。。

Ajay-p: I think this is a good thing. The government could record you without your consent, the citizen should be allowed to as well. I understand police need warrants, but what is the citizen to do? Especially when so many courts, judges, and juries take the word of police over the citizen.Seems very fair to me.

Ajay-p: 我认为这是一件好事。政府可以在未经你同意的情况下对你进行记录，公民也应该被允许。我知道警察需要逮捕令，但公民该怎么办？尤其是当如此多的法院、法官和陪审团将警察的话凌驾于公民之上时 对我来说似乎很公平。