226
submitted 7 hours ago by Wuddi@lemmy.zip to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] plantsmakemehappy@lemmy.zip 32 points 7 hours ago

As we were talking, I asked if I could record the call. He said no. I was in front of a keyboard, though, furiously jotting down every word.

Depends on the jurisdiction if you need two-party consent to record.

[-] mrmisses@lemmy.world 33 points 6 hours ago

Who cares, do it anyway. They lie and cheat, so can we.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, I don't think all these big tech companies with their telemetry and ~~adware~~ spyware are following those laws, so why should we?

[-] YaDownWitCPP@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

You have millions of dollars to try fighting the case? They do.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 6 hours ago

The punishment for recording will be insignificant compared to the punishment for the person you recorded. That is unless illegal recordings are inadmissible in court.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago

Fun fact, law enforcement is bound by the fourth amendment against performing illegal searches or seizures. Any evidence gained from "the fruit of the poisonous tree" is generally inadmissible unless they can prove they could have found it through other legal means. This in no way prevents them from using evidence gained through illegal means and provided to them outside of direct law enforcement action!

[-] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 hours ago

As an aside, the fruit from the poisoned tree has long been admitted into evidence through several pathways. One such end run is called parallel construction, they get illegal information, then find a legal way they can use it in court.

But they often don't have to, long long ago the scotus said the evidence could be admitted if the police thought they were following the law. So they can plead stupid.

Nevermind the requirements that warrants, if they even bother with them, specify what they are looking for, before the 80s if they were looking for guns but found drugs that were not listed on the warrant, it was inadmissible, but now anything they find they can use.

If you are rich and have a lot of money you might be able to fight some of that, but for almost everyone, you are fucked.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 hours ago

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse... unless you are the law... then you can be as ignorant of the law as you want!"

this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
226 points (99.6% liked)

politics

29962 readers
2723 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS