I am not a lawyer, but I'm guessing it would depend on where the offended party is located.
It doesn't happen often because it's a hassle, but I know of cases where the US extradites foreign nationals for crimes that were legal where they are, but illegal in the US.
Not sure how it plays out within the US state-by-state but I know it's possible to be wanted for crimes in specific states yet have no problems as long as you never go there.
California can press charges for wiretapping, but they're not going to waste thousands of dollars on the process of extraditing someone when the fine itself might only be a few hundred dollars.
Bullshit. California has no jurisdiction over people in one-party consent states.
The California court decision it cites (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (2006)) is being misinterpreted: the "Georgia" party in that instance was a corporation that also does business in California, and that is what made it subject to California law. The notion that its precedent creates some "general rule" is a blatant fucking lie.
even then, the ruling that you show here stated that CA sided with Georgia in the case as well, they stated that future business should hold to CA's laws due to the customer being a CA resident, but that due to the company residing in Georgia, they are not liable for past damages. It was basically a case of "we believe our law is correct but we acknowledge that we have no jurisdiction to actually chase this and if it goes to federal court it will be tossed due to federal law favoring one party consent"
It was dismissed in trial court, and when it was appealed the appeals court affirmed the dismissal
I don't think this will matter overall. I don't know if any states that are no party consent meaning that you can't record ever, only one or two party consents.
The feature itself isn't illegal, its using it when you are not supposed to that is. I assume the feature will roll out as normal and it will be up to the user to determine whether they are allowed to use it or not.
They banned it in the sense only system apps can have call recording. So you either need root or your manufacturer needs to ship the feature in their app natively.
12 Comments
Blueliner@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 202d
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 202d
What can the state do if someone from another state where it’s legal records it anyways?
Blueliner@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 202d
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 202d
I am not a lawyer, but I'm guessing it would depend on where the offended party is located.
It doesn't happen often because it's a hassle, but I know of cases where the US extradites foreign nationals for crimes that were legal where they are, but illegal in the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-loses-us-extradition
Not sure how it plays out within the US state-by-state but I know it's possible to be wanted for crimes in specific states yet have no problems as long as you never go there.
California can press charges for wiretapping, but they're not going to waste thousands of dollars on the process of extraditing someone when the fine itself might only be a few hundred dollars.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 202d
Not sure how good a source this is, but: https://www.getnextphone.com/blog/call-recording-laws-by-state
grue@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 202d
Bullshit. California has no jurisdiction over people in one-party consent states.
The California court decision it cites (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (2006)) is being misinterpreted: the "Georgia" party in that instance was a corporation that also does business in California, and that is what made it subject to California law. The notion that its precedent creates some "general rule" is a blatant fucking lie.
Pika@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 202d
even then, the ruling that you show here stated that CA sided with Georgia in the case as well, they stated that future business should hold to CA's laws due to the customer being a CA resident, but that due to the company residing in Georgia, they are not liable for past damages. It was basically a case of "we believe our law is correct but we acknowledge that we have no jurisdiction to actually chase this and if it goes to federal court it will be tossed due to federal law favoring one party consent"
It was dismissed in trial court, and when it was appealed the appeals court affirmed the dismissal
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 202d
Okay, but if it’s broken, how does the person know let alone what CAN they do.
The article doesn’t cover how they recover the damages in another state. Having the laws is only one small portion of the picture.
It being legal federally is a hurdle on its own.
Janx@piefed.social · 2 pts · 202d
I think it only allows recording of verified business numbers, not personal ones. A whitelist system...
Pika@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 202d
I don't think this will matter overall. I don't know if any states that are no party consent meaning that you can't record ever, only one or two party consents.
The feature itself isn't illegal, its using it when you are not supposed to that is. I assume the feature will roll out as normal and it will be up to the user to determine whether they are allowed to use it or not.
unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 202d
Didn't Google literally ban this feature from Android a couple years back? I hope it doesn't become a Pixel exclusive thing.
Fuck Google anyway.
baatliwala@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 202d
They banned it in the sense only system apps can have call recording. So you either need root or your manufacturer needs to ship the feature in their app natively.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 202d
This is going to ship as "on by default", isn't it?
baatliwala@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 202d
I doubt it because that would be a huge legal mess