Cheaters

[Alinoa]

You are missing my point. The comparison is in the recordings. It will eventually blow up to is it legal to record sound in the public. The response should be a yes because you don't know what could be talked about that is in the case.

Yes. I do miss your point because you aren't making a clear case.
If its illegal then how public it maybe is a moot point as at that time it become a lawsuit somewhere because its illegal?

And if this person posted this and what she did was illegal and what he did isnt doesn't that render your argument invalid anyway?

Elaborate because I'm confused.

 

[RaiderLL]

I think what the poster did was terrible!! People need to mind their own damn business sometimes. Whether he was cheating or just bs'ing with friends...that eves dropper had no right to take his picture and put it out there like that for the world to see. Even if he actually had cheated, I highly doubt his wife appreciated finding out that way. People just enjoy stirring up shit. :smt018

 

[archangel]

Yes. I do miss your point because you aren't making a clear case.
If its illegal then how public it maybe is a moot point as at that time it become a lawsuit somewhere because its illegal?

And if this person posted this and what she did was illegal and what he did isnt doesn't that render your argument invalid anyway?

Elaborate because I'm confused.

It is legal to record public conversations. It is also legal to place it on the internet. It is a moot point as It was already dealt before this thread was started. I am just pointing out the problems with making it illegal to record and place it on the internet. You would be silencing people who might defend you from the police. That's not cool for you or any one. The worst case for this guy is his wife or g/f breaks up. If we make it illegal, Pre LA riot policing could happen.

 

[Alinoa]

It is legal to record public conversations. It is also legal to place it on the internet. It is a moot point as It was already dealt before this thread was started. I am just pointing out the problems with making it illegal to record and place it on the internet. You would be silencing people who might defend you from the police. That's not cool for you or any one. The worst case for this guy is his wife or g/f breaks up. If we make it illegal, Pre LA riot policing could happen.

Nuh uh. Try again.


Recording in public
The general rule is that people in public places must assume they might be photographed or recorded, particularly if they are officials carrying out their public duties. Therefore, you may photograph, film and record what you can easily see or hear in public places, even if the recorded people have not specifically consented to such, provided you do not harass, trespass or otherwise intrude. This includes shooting footage of a private property from a public sidewalk, as long as you do not engage in overzealous surveillance, such as the offensive use, for example, of a telephoto lens to record intimate activities inside the bedroom or bathroom of a private residence.


Laws differ in the United States on how many parties must give their consent before a conversation may be recorded. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, conversations may be recorded if the person is party to the conversation, or if at least one of the people who are party to the conversation have given a third party consent to record the conversation. In California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington State, the consent of all parties must be obtained in order to record a conversation.[7]


One (the bottom is wiki) is wiki and one is from the reporters legal website.
Bottom obviously deals with non-reporters and is directly applicable to public places.

 

[archangel]

Nuh uh. Try again.


Recording in public
The general rule is that people in public places must assume they might be photographed or recorded, particularly if they are officials carrying out their public duties. Therefore, you may photograph, film and record what you can easily see or hear in public places, even if the recorded people have not specifically consented to such, provided you do not harass, trespass or otherwise intrude. This includes shooting footage of a private property from a public sidewalk, as long as you do not engage in overzealous surveillance, such as the offensive use, for example, of a telephoto lens to record intimate activities inside the bedroom or bathroom of a private residence.


Laws differ in the United States on how many parties must give their consent before a conversation may be recorded. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, conversations may be recorded if the person is party to the conversation, or if at least one of the people who are party to the conversation have given a third party consent to record the conversation. In California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington State, the consent of all parties must be obtained in order to record a conversation.[7]


One (the bottom is wiki) is wiki and one is from the reporters legal website.
Bottom obviously deals with non-reporters and is directly applicable to public places.

in bold

 

[Alinoa]

in bold

The top quote is from a website for reporters
Recording public conversations as news pieces. I specified that in my post.

It wouldn't cover this breech of privacy because she did intrude anyway.

Try again hunky bunches

 

[orejon4]

I think that, unless you personally know the person involved, you should mind your own business. This is especially troubling given the potential for abuse.

 

[archangel]

The top quote is from a website for reporters
Recording public conversations as news pieces. I specified that in my post.

It wouldn't cover this breech of privacy because she did intrude anyway.

Try again hunky bunches

It does not mention that these rules apply only to reports. She can easily state that she is reporting to the public.

Also the wiki page has little creditability as someone can change that page and its source is talking about telephone calls.

 

[Alinoa]

It does not mention that these rules apply only to reports. She can easily state that she is reporting to the public.

Also the wiki page has little creditability as someone can change that page and its source is talking about telephone calls.

The part I quoted was dealing with the public, not phone calls.
You can't have a phone call with 10 people.

Anyhow, if it was ever revealed that I was recorded having a conversation against my knowledge and that conversation was used to shame me..the person who recorded the convo and shamed me better live in fear.
I will either sue (because its NOT legal to do so..I don't care what you say. Show me other wise and I might) or I will track them down and shame them in public for being such a twat. Ill also record it and then post it to Facebook and ask that it be shared.

 

[archangel]

The part I quoted was dealing with the public, not phone calls.
You can't have a phone call with 10 people.

Anyhow, if it was ever revealed that I was recorded having a conversation against my knowledge and that conversation was used to shame me..the person who recorded the convo and shamed me better live in fear.
I will either sue (because its NOT legal to do so..I don't care what you say. Show me other wise and I might) or I will track them down and shame them in public for being such a twat. Ill also record it and then post it to Facebook and ask that it be shared.

What I am saying is that anyone can write anything on wiki. It is not an acceptable source. At one point, I typed in butthead and got george bush. At another point, I typed up barack Obama(during 2008 campaign) and got godzilla. Should I believe that because it is on wikipedia?:neutral:

doubtful you will win. If this person has enough money to challenge it and the supreme court wants to consider it, they will look at it at a federal level. On a federal level, you need one person to agree. guess who the recorder is going to say agreed to it:wink:.

 

[Alinoa]

What I am saying is that anyone can write anything on wiki. It is not an acceptable source. At one point, I typed in butthead and got george bush. At another point, I typed up barack Obama(during 2008 campaign) and got godzilla. Should I believe that because it is on wikipedia?:neutral:

doubtful you will win. If this person has enough money to challenge it and the supreme court wants to consider it, they will look at it at a federal level. On a federal level, you need one person to agree. guess who the recorder is going to say agreed to it:wink:.

*sigh*

Agreed to in what form, council?

If I'm sitting on a train and take a picture and post it with the caption saying, "if this is your husband.."
When I'm drug into court, which leg can I stand on when my post starts with 'if this is your husband' and I'm saying, at a federal level, he gave me consent.

Hell, he did. I don't even know who the hell his wife is. And some judge is going to buy that he gave me permission to post to Facebook saying I just listened to him talk about cheating on a wife I don't know?

Never. Going. To. Happen.

 

[archangel]

*sigh*

Agreed to in what form, council?

If I'm sitting on a train and take a picture and post it with the caption saying, "if this is your husband.."
When I'm drug into court, which leg can I stand on when my post starts with 'if this is your husband' and I'm saying, at a federal level, he gave me consent.

Hell, he did. I don't even know who the hell his wife is. And some judge is going to buy that he gave me permission to post to Facebook saying I just listened to him talk about cheating on a wife I don't know?

Never. Going. To. Happen.

The recorder will agree to it. You only need one person to agree on the federal level.

 

[Alinoa]

The recorder will agree to it. You only need one person to agree on the federal level.

The recorder in this case was not a part of the party being recorded.
She doesn't even know who the hell the man is or who his wife is. She is just capable of shoving her phone and fingers into a a situation that isnt her business to post to the Internet about something she doesn't have actual first hand knowledge about.

So, the recorder in this case can't be the one to agree to it. She violated privacy by being an intruder on the convo.

 

[archangel]

The recorder in this case was not a part of the party being recorded.
She doesn't even know who the hell the man is or who his wife is. She is just capable of shoving her phone and fingers into a a situation that isnt her business to post to the Internet about something she doesn't have actual first hand knowledge about.

So, the recorder in this case can't be the one to agree to it. She violated privacy by being an intruder on the convo.

You know what is funny. We have been talking about a recording when there wasn't even one. There is a picture and that's it. It doesn't say that she wasn't. If she had simply said I am tired of this. She is part of it.

 

[Alinoa]

You know what is funny. We have been talking about a recording when there wasn't even one. There is a picture and that's it. It doesn't say that she wasn't. If she had simply said I am tired of this. She is part of it.

How is that to be known for sure? She obviously doesn't know who the man is. She doesn't know who the mans husband is.

Where does it say she's a part of this?

 

[Alinoa]

The husband in question doesn’t appear to have come forward, nor has anyone, at least on the original thread, stepped up to identify him. And the poster hasn’t responded to a request for comment. So at this point we don’t know if the “husband” is actually a cheater, or even if he’s really married. He could just be an unpleasant braggart — he certainly wouldn’t be the first to inflate his sexual accomplishments in front of his friends. One commenter on the Facebook thread has a more upsetting speculation: “I hope the person taking the picture isn’t trolling because the guy was just load [sic] and obnoxious…”

Which actually gets to the heart of the matter. It’s now possible to use social media to enforce behavior in public and semi-public spaces in a way it never was before. In the Richards case, much ink has been spilled over whether Twitter was the appropriate place to turn for such enforcement, but at this point the question is moot. This is the way we live now, and if you act like a jerk in public, prepare to be publicly humiliated.

From salon. (Hope that's o.k.)

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/07/alleged_cheating_husband_gets_shamed_on_facebook/

 

[archangel]

How is that to be known for sure? She obviously doesn't know who the man is. She doesn't know who the mans husband is.

Where does it say she's a part of this?

there is no evidence on either side. There isn't even a recording. I'm going back to my movie. whore's glory. I'm still trying to figure out how to feel when a thailand ho says she doesn't do black guys because their dicks are too big.

am I suppose to feel discrimanted against or proud lol????:smt102

 

[Alinoa]

there is no evidence on either side. There isn't even a recording. I'm going back to my movie. whore's glory. I'm still trying to figure out how to feel when a thailand ho says she doesn't do black guys because their dicks are too big.

am I suppose to feel discrimanted against or proud lol????:smt102

How about proudly discriminated against?
Wait..no.
That's all wrong.

 

[Alinoa]

The mother who shamed the man on Facebook:

I feel a meme coming on here.

 

[Bookworm616]

An alleged cheater was publicly shamed Wednesday, and now his photo has gone viral.

"If this is your husband, I have endured a 2 hour train ride from Philadelphia listening to this loser and his friends brag about their multiple affairs and how their wives are too stupid to catch on. Oh please repost..." a Facebook user wrote on Wednesday.

And boy, did people repost. At the time of publication, the photo had been shared more than 86,000 times -- and counting.
Salon writer Anna North points out that the post "is just the latest in a long line of public shamings on social media," and that "it's now possible to use social media to enforce behavior in public and semi-public spaces in a way it never was before."

She also notes, however, that "those who publicly shame others now open themselves up to public shaming too."

We want to know: What do you make of the Facebook post? And is it OK to put cheaters on blast?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...nd-face_n_3405192.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

would you tell your friend if their wife/hubby or boy/girlfriend was cheating?

Reality TV is making people think that our entire lives are on display for the world to see. Unless this guy is claiming, in public, that he did an ILLEGAL act such as rape or murder, this person had no right to butt into a conversation that wasn't directed at her and think that she knows what was going on between friends.

This story and what the woman did is despicable. This guy could have lost his job, his marriage, his kids, who knows? This woman had no right to do that.

Ugh.