• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Deliberately planned and persistent campaign to frame Linus Torvalds

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
disappoint said:
Why is that? I never understood why a person can't use a recording to defend themselves from false accusations. If you disclose that you are recording them obviously then they won't make the false accusations. So the only way to defend yourself is to have hidden, undisclosed recording devices but they are inadmissible.

By what reasoning have the legislators made these recordings inadmissible?

Speaking of which, when you have a video recording of a traffic accident, that is admissible right? But you never told all the other drivers you are videoing them!
Click to expand...

Expectation of privacy. Look it up.

Often times a third party (witness) removes that expectation of privacy and undisclosed recording is suddenly legal. The logic is that anything can be taken out of context and coerced when the other party does not know they are going to be held accountable for what they just said.

"Here, baby. Help me practice my lines for this acting gig I got. Just read that first line about how you just killed someone and I'll respond."

"Hey, baby. Let's have sex and role-play. You'll be the burglar and I'll be the innocent victim. Safe word is 'Oh-mah-gawd-what've-I-done?!,' OK?"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top