Say it was possible to sit in a large public park and record every conversation within it. Would this decision mean that the state would be unable to ban the use of such technology?
That was already true; you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, and never have. I can legally video and audio record anything I wish in a public park.
I'd be interested to see how a court interprets that given technology that allows discreet remote recording. E.g. you might have to reasonably expect that the guy next to you on the bus could be wearing a wire, but what if someone has a powerful enough microphone that they can record quiet conversations at similar distances to a telephoto lens? I'm unsure what the current actual availability of such technology is, but I'm suggesting it for the sake of argument
Or what if you've hidden a microphone on a secluded bench, and record a conversation where the subjects reasonably believe there is no one around for 20 metres? Consider that businesses put up "you're on CCTV" signs for a reason. A lot of the reason is deterrence, but depending on the jurisdiction it's sometimes considered a legal necessity (or at least prudent) to make the subject aware of the recording, even in a private space
As has been pointed out approximately a billion times, technology has made surveillance possible to an extent that was inconceivable back in the founders' time.
Before sound recording technology, if there was no-one else around and had a whispered conversation with another person in a public park, I have a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private.
Fast forward to, say, 1980. While it's technically possible for law enforcement to record that conversation (with a dish microphone or through employing a lip-reader and binoculars) the resources required to do so are such that it's very rarely used.
But what about 2023? Or, better still, 2033? Let's imagine it's technically possible for me to stand in the middle of said park with a recording device and intelligibly record every conversation within a 500-yard radius. Would this be considered acceptable? Should governments have the ability to prohibit or restrict the use of such devices, even in public places?
I think it's an interesting question, but perhaps it's the wrong approach to even try to answer it? Perhaps it's better to consider what happens TO the recording.
Being obviously recorded (paparazzi) is the case when the recording itself feels like it is infringing my privacy. If I don't know, and the recording is piped to /dev/null then I can't really care? But if the recording is kept too long, or published somewhere, then that's when I might care. So perhaps we should focus on what's being done to the recorded material. Compare to how in most legislations (afaik) it's ok for me to snap a picture of someone who happens to be in my view when I snap a picture of the Eiffel Tower. And I can publish that on my blog without permission. BUT if I want to sell it as a stock photo or use it in a commercial then I need explicit consent from the people in the picture. I think this makes perfect sense from a consent perspective.
I didn't know this was true until a neckbeard got some closeups of a yoga girl doing yoga in a public area. He wasn't hiding it either, he was outright vocal about what he was doing.
Beta AF, but it was interesting to think that if recording in a public park was legal, what else is legal.
If so, it strikes me as a dumb decision.