[joecool1029]

One of the reasons I build my own LineageOS builds is because of terrible one-party consent recording laws (in places like California) there’s no geographic way in Android to check it on a state-by-state way. It just goes off country code and disables it for the US since quite a few states it’s illegal to do. For my state it isn’t illegal so I modified my builds to allow it.

There are other things like this too in Android disabled on per-country. Japan has a camera shutter noise that cannot be disabled but this was a request by their carriers, apparently not a law, big discussion under this review: https://review.lineageos.org/c/LineageOS/android_frameworks_...

[hedora]

I always assumed blocking recording because two party consent states exist was an excuse to help big companies screw over individuals. For one thing, the phone has gps, for another it could start recording if it hears the “you are being recorded” tone. Also, why is this the only scenario where they block the mic and camera? Locker rooms are apparently fine.

Anyway, how many times have you been recorded on a phone call by some faceless corporation, then wished you had a copy of the recording after they “reviewed” it then came to the opposite conclusion the recording should support?

[AndrewDavis]

This is something I've never understood. If consent is remaining on the line after a message "this call may be recorded (for training and quality purposes)", the simple answer is in places where you have to have consent have the phone send a similar message.

[lazide]

No need to send - if there is no expectation of privacy because one of the parties is recording, then everyone can.

(Check applicable state law, but it has been true everywhere I am aware of)

[Wowfunhappy]

> Also, why is this the only scenario where they block the mic and camera? Locker rooms are apparently fine.

How would the phone detect that you're in a locker room? Even if it is possible, it seems very hard and likely error prone. Disabling call recording is easy.

[mschuster91]

> Japan has a camera shutter noise that cannot be disabled but this was a request by their carriers, apparently not a law

In some countries, regulation works in a way that the economy gets a chance to fix issues before the legislative needs to intervene. And with the Japanese and their massive issues with rampant sexual abuse... I get where that one came from, in addition to the two major phone brands not wanting to be associated with sexual abuse (which the last comment of the thread also references).

And personally, I do believe that this is the better way when forced with widespread ignorance of difficult to enforce laws - target the "accomplices" or "toolmakers".

[joecool1029]

I'm not making a judgement on it either way. These are things that are available to change in source. I'm just pointing it out, since others aren't aware of how things can be done.

But there are things locked out in the US I cannot get to. One of the things I've wanted to do for some years is turn on BeiDou reception, but it has a firmware geofence while inside CONUS. For Qualcomm devices there's no way that I've been able to find a way around this, it's not an opensource component. Just to preempt anyone saying it's because it's Chinese spywhere, Qualcomm/Tomtom engineers don't feel receive-only reception is a security risk (there's a report somewhere where military said the same, it's strictly a political prohibition): https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Staff%20Re...

[wraptile]

Japanese "shutter sound" requirement is peak "we regulate ourselves" outcome - completely ineffecitve nuisance that provides an illusion of effectiveness to the illiterate.

[fc417fc802]

So you're saying it's exactly the same outcome as the typical reactionary law.