• Mugita Sokio@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 个月前

    You don’t consent by not using one of those devices, period. On top of that, this should be a massive violation of multiple laws everywhere. Of course, corpos will corpo, and bypass laws at their pleasure.

    • Vanth@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 个月前

      Your consent doesn’t matter (legally) in a single-party consent state. Which includes some bigs like New York and Texas. California is a two-party consent state though, so theoretically these people should be informing each other that they are using recording equipment.

      • Mugita Sokio@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 个月前

        I don’t think you see what I’m getting at yet. What I said was that not buying one of those devices, among others, is the way you don’t consent to your 4th Amendment rights being violated. Now, if a device like that is usable with a de-Googled solution, as long as it’s hardened right, then at the very least, it shows you don’t consent to the corporate spying. Government spying though… good luck with that.

        • Vanth@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 个月前

          And I’m saying that in many states your lack of consent doesn’t matter (legally speaking). Your consent is not required if someone else decides to record with their device.

          I don’t like it. Just stating that you declining to consent does nothing if someone else records you and gives the recordings to the police. That’s not a search of you or your possessions, that’s a search of someone else’s recording that did not require your consent to be made.

          None of this is new, just increasingly insidious and ubiquitous.