you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (28 children)
  • [+] 91 points 2 years ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (24 children)
  • [+] 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    that makes anything you say after implied to have given consent for the recording, bypassing any two-party comsent laws.

    That... doesn't sound like two party consent to me. Are you saying that I can tell someone "I'm recording this call" and they don't have to actually consent, they just have to not mention it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Makes sense. I don't usually call customer service - I tend to use email or social media where possible, so that I have everything in writing with timestamps, just in case I need to refer back to it or use it as evidence.

    Does that mean I can also record them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    That's incorrect twice.

    First off, you don't have to tell them you're recording if they've already informed you they're recording. They've already consented to being recorded.

    And when recording a conversation across state lines from a single-party consent state to a 2-party consent state, the 2-party rules are in effect.

    Otherwise they could just route all call centers through single-party states and skip the recording.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    But you can say “Just so you know, this phone call is being recorded” and if they continue to talk, they are implicitly giving consent

    Which makes it kind of bullshit and not two-party, since in many cases this is effectively the only means of communicating with these companies. There is no real option to not consent, especially in the case of healthcare companies, since it's not like a person can just choose to not have a body with real medical concerns (and in the US you legally can't even go uninsured without penalty). Calling this "two party" at this point is a fucking joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    You can literally choose to not say anything about threatening or murdering someone over a recorded call.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    They consent by continuing the call. They can otherwise hang up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    And if you hang up you can't deal with the claim denial. So really, wouldn't that start to tread the line of coercion? If you don't consent to being recorded we'll continue to deny healthcare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    If you have a recording of someone threatening to kill you, the police can absolutely act.

    Threatening to kill someone unless they give you what you want is not protected speech. Otherwise, you could walk into a bank, demand they give you money under threat of violence, then walk out having committed no crimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm sorry to say, but that's not necessarily true. It would need to be a police recording or record of someone threatening you for them to actually have to do anything. You could walk into a precinct with a bona fide video of someone making a serious threat to your life and the police typically won't do anything about it. That same person could make a clip about murdering you and post it online with a clear plan to kill you and the police still wouldn't have to act. All of that is hearsay, regardless of how serious the intent is and the police can choose to ignore it. Unless it's someone worth helping, someone who might be able to make a sizable donation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    The police doesn't have to act if a person drags another person into the precinct and murders them in front of all the cops according stupid US courts (Warren v. District of Columbia).

    That's why 2a and self-defense are such important rights. You want to be safe? Better take care of it yourself (or elect a 3rd party that will change the status quo, but fantasy solutions don't count).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Remember the time Lemmy was so outraged at the elections that they, un ironically, became Unabomber stans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    She didn't say she was going to be involved in whatever the "next" thing ment. Might have been a heart-felt warning against vigilantes.Also, the "next" thing might well have been "...to get much needed care denied".

    Legally this is so flimsy it's a waste of time. Looking at wording from politicians there's way more direct calls to violence which will never be prosecuted. In practice it shows the pull of big corporations with cops, and inconveniences the life of an already inconvenienced person.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    It's weird, because I took it to mean that the people she's talking to are going to be denied insurance in some way next.

    I mean we can assume, and it's fairly likely, that it was a reference to the assassination, but American court is fucked if this is enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I was literally told by some dude that “if I see you again, I’ll fucking kill you” while I was walking my dog at night around my town’s library. I told the police and they didn’t do jack shit. Whereas this lady gets a hit by a $100,000 bond?

  • source
  • parent