Could this be the end of undercover journalism?

Defamation is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment?

It seems to me that the 'privacy' line should be logically drawn at the point that someone is recorded on video doing something which they are doing privately. Such as getting undressed or showering.

 

You should not have to ask because I already explained what aspect of it is illegal.

 

Correct.

It prohibits 3rd parties from recording your conversations, meaning someone not party to the conversation. Google apparently has been doing exactly that, which is a violation of federal law.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/google-quietly-recording-hear-delete/

 

No, you are not making any sense. Maybe you did not follow the conversation. I simply said making something illegal, does not automatically equate to "zero incident" scenario.

 

You mean the lack of consent?

 

Well?

 

I'm really confused. So federal law essentially prohibits video evidence in undercover journalism?

This is a recording of history though, not conversations.

 

In undercover journalism, the journalist (or news company) is one of the parties to the conversation. So no, federal law does not preempt undercover journalism. Many states do have such prohibitions, though. No recording of conversations unless both parties know they are being recorded. So journalism is not prohibited, spying is. Example... let's say news station KSHI-TV finds out from a fired employee that local ne'er-do-well Wesuck Corp. has been dumping heavy metals in a storage pond on its property. KSHI can ask for a response from the company, it can send someone into the building when it is open and ask to speak to a manager, it can report the violation to the state and federal agencies (who can go onto the property to check), it can ask someone from the company to give an interview that the interviewee knows will be recorded and possibly used on the news. Depending on the state, KSHI may be able to send someone in undercover with a recording device to record audio and/or video (one party knows, the other party(ies) do not). Some things it cannot do without running afoul of the law: It cannot go on the property to look for the pond to check for heavy metal contamination (trespassing). It cannot set up hidden cameras and hidden audio recording devices on the company's property or where the employees or managers go to eat (third party recording, or spying). It cannot pose as a federal agency to gain access to the property (I forget the specifics, but it falls under the rubric of impersonating a police officer). That said, I consider any journalist who breaks the law to uncover evidence of wrongdoing to be a credit to his profession. It sometimes takes the brilliant light of public exposure to get people to clean up their act. No sign of that from Hillary yet, but she's a special case. But you do have situations like 20/20 and Albertson's, where journalists so eager to get the scoop fake the news they want to report. So there do need to be safeguards.

According to that article, calls can be recorded, too, depending on how you have your phone set up. All "legal", too, because Google requires you to authorize everything before you use the phone. But it shouldn't be legal under federal law, and it's not well understood by the phone-using public. Someone mentioned on the trivia site I use that every time she enters a question on the site, Google knows and starts sending her ads based on the content of the question, even though the site is not hosted by or run by Google.

 

Assuming that the undercover journalist doesn't engage in spying, but the state still charges them, then it DOES mean that journalism (in this 'recording' context) is prohibited in that state. No?

So who would the third party be in this case?

These safeguards are in the form of libel/defamation laws right?

A search for "google record call conversations history" doesn't return any relevant results.

 

Journalism, no, undercover journalism, yes.

The TV station, recording other people's conversations without their knowledge or consent.

That's one way, but legal sanctions are another. Assange is a good example. He's both a hero and a villain, so what to do? Give him a medal AND throw him in jail?

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?p=account_voice_audio&authuser=0&visit_id=636952487406620682-881059834&rd=1&co=GENIE.Platform=Android&oco=1

 

Sorry, are you now saying that it is illegal to record other people's conversations without their knowledge or consent?

Sanctions against the news organisation?

Yeah, so this is just for voice recording when audio activations are used such as saying commands like "Ok Google." So not phone calls.

I'm really confused why it is only consider "spying" if they set up hidden cameras and hidden audio recording devices on the company's property.