[natebc]

<nerdsniped> and removed so that i don't get sued for gross misinterpretation, ignorance and misinformation spreading.

What was here was a link to a California statute that is apparently misinformation somehow. Who knows, I'm just some igorant redneck apparently.

[macintux]

> For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

This is not confidential communications.

[nerdsniper]

Did you read that law? It applies to “Confidential communication…carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio”. Conversation in public is by nature not “confidential”. You are grossly misinterpreting this law and (unintentionally/ignorantly) spreading misinformation.

Edit: Another commenter has made me aware that some states do ban non-consensual audio recordings in public: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law

The laws prohibiting these recordings have neither been upheld nor overturned by the US Supreme Court.

[natebc]

Grossly misinterpreting and spreading misinformation? I clarified a location and linked to the relevant statute.

You may have a smudge on your optics, mr. sniper.