undefined | Better HN

0 pointstyingq5y ago0 comments

Yes, laws overlap. The ones I'm talking about are generally about "intercepting communications" i.e., "recording conversations". In general, the US requires one-party consent, but there are 15 states that require two-party consent.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

varispeed5y ago· 2 in thread

So you can put your phone on recording e.g. in a restaurant "intercepting communications", but when someone calls you it's a no-no. Regardless, in my country recording is perfectly legal and yet Google has disabled it. If this is the law, then don't you think they should either follow it or not? I am not sure how you can only partially follow the law.

tyingqOP5y ago

They are doing the lazy thing and configuring it for "lowest common denominator". Yes, it's irritating. The effort to integrate GPS and allow/not-allow would be low.

Maybe it's complicated for telephone conversations where you're not breaking a law locally, but are breaking a law remotely?

varispeed5y ago

I'd rather think that insurance companies and similar who rely on sales over the phone lobbied Google to disable it. The law thing for me is too poorly done to be a valid excuse.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse