[DougEiffel]

Strongly disagree. There are so many situations in which abusive people (employers, romantic partners, politicians) need to be caught unaware or they won't be caught at all.

Obviously there are lines to be drawn when we are talking about the government recording citizens. Warrants are an important check on power for this. But any individual should be able to record (mostly) anything. At the very least, it can save you money when a customer service rep claims they never said something. At most, it can keep you out of prison.

[fardo]

In many cases, the act of recording is itself an abusive action. Privacy is valuable, desirable, and the freedom to converse knowing there isn’t a recording running is itself the freedom to speak without all conversations being subject to chilling effects. Society is not improved by the threat that every ephemeral conversation is potentially being collected for later use, abuse, and scrutiny.

This therefore to me seems like a thinly-veiled variant on “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”. A world of constant recording is not a better one.

[ShadowBanThis01]

The best part about the customer-service scenario is that the vast majority now say "this call may be recorded..."

Fine. I'm recording it!

[lamontcg]

But I worry about everyone's ring doorbells spying on all the neighbors.

[woodson]

But that’s not one-party consent. The ring cameras aren’t a party.

[lamontcg]

Just give the SCOTUS a bit more time.

[nerdponx]

By walking or standing in view of this doorbell, you agree to the following terms...

[lamontcg]

Corporations are people, so Amazon is a person, and if you invite Amazon into your home then they can record a conversation heard across the fence into someone else's yard.