[checkyoursudo]

Be careful of your jurisdiction. In some places, the act itself of secret recording can be a criminal offence. In that case, you will want to include the possibility of prison in your cost-benefit analysis.

E.g., Germany: StGB 201 § 201 Verletzung der Vertraulichkeit des Wortes https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__201.html

In some places, secret recordings are useless as evidence (e.g., two-party consent states in the United States), while in others even illegal recordings may be admissible anyway (e.g., Sweden).

[candiddevmike]

I can't help but think secret recording laws are there to protect the elite more than the common person...

[checkyoursudo]

I think it still depends on local circumstances.

For example, in Germany, a lot of the privacy culture (and therefore, laws) came about because of how the secret police terrorised the common people, for example, using secret recordings and worse (e.g., secret evidence).

But in other places, sure, I would agree with you.

[formerly_proven]

201 StGB is nowadays mostly used to prosecute people recording police actions. How... ironic.

[zyberzero]

It's legal in Sweden to record secretly as long as you are one of the parties in the recording.

[checkyoursudo]

Yeah, a good nuance that my original comment did not capture. Thanks. I edited my original to try to make what I meant clearer.

[rasz]

It was like that in Poland .. until some politicians got recorded and recordings leaked to the press, you can guess how that changed the law.

[berniedurfee]

I think NY is the same IIRC.