Feb 092018
 February 9, 2018  Posted by  Laws, Surveillance, U.S.

Paul Mero writes:

Consent or not to consent? That is the question for Utah legislators wondering how to address a new bill (HB 330) requiring the consent of both parties before a private conversation can be electronically recorded. Everyone knows how much fun secret recordings can be. We remember secret recordings of insider conversations, such as Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment and those guys that video taped Planned Parenthood admitting to selling baby parts. That stuff is juicy and shouldn’t we know those things?

But what about private conversations that have nothing to do with politics or possible crimes? I mean really private conversations such as between a priest and a parishioner or doctor and a patient. Should the law allow one party to the conversation to secretly record the meeting? State Rep. Lowry Snow’s new bill says no. His bill would require the consent of both parties before a recording of a truly private conversation could take place – and I think it’s a good idea.

Read more of his commentary on Cache Valley Daily.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.