Very few commenters seem to realize that this decision affects only "States prohibiting recording without providing notice
to or obtaining consent from the recording’s subjects
when created in a place where the subjects lack a
reasonable expectation of privacy“ (e.g. when talking in public).
Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon.
I don't understand why public is considered "lack a reasonable expectation of privacy".
In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violating their privacy and are required to get consent. This consent can also be revoked at any time later.
I’ve been sitting here for a while trying to come up with how to eloquently put this in English and I cannot. Maybe English lacks the appropriate terminology to express the difference between privacy and publicity within the expanded scope of current technology. It’s my only language, and I like to think I’m pretty good at it, but I’m absolutely stumped as to how you’d exactly word exactly what you’re not understanding.
I feel like it’s a case of the language we speak shaping our interpretation of what is just, and doing so in such a way that it’s hard to even explain what we’re now missing.
The problem, in so many words, is that these days the act of being in public is public. That’s a weird sentence to write, and I’m not sure how else to put it.
Previously, the memory of any public act was restricted to those who were there to observe it at the time. Any acts in public were by themselves public. Acts in private were private. There was a third quasi-state: anonymous isn’t the right word, because you were always identifiable, but by happenstance you just weren’t. You were in public, but not publicised. Recognisable, but not recognised. Observable, but not observed. By definition though you were always in public, never in private.
Modern technology has somewhat erased the third state by slowly but surely eroding the cases in which you are not observed, tracked, recorded, or identified, by some technology or another. It’s made public very public, if you excuse the unavoidable pleonasm.
There’s no good word for the third state, that I can think of, and it makes me sad.
I think there's a distinction between being recorded in the first place, and what the recording might be used for in the future. I think it's OK to permit a recording to take place in a public place without explicit consent, but still require consent to use that recording in (for example) publishing it where someone is a feature in that publication (as opposed to someone who happens to be in the background and remains otherwise unidentified).
Nowadays technology might mean that someone anonymous gets identified by a third party using automation. So it will become public knowledge, indexable on the person, as to where they were and what they were doing. But that was going to happen anyway. I'm not sure restricting recordings in the first place is really going to stop that.
Is Switzerland as covered in security cameras as the USA?
Because there's not really a whole lot of public places aside from parts of national and state parks where one could reasonably expect to not be on a camera most of the time, right?
Since this ruling came from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, wouldn’t this ruling only affect Alaska, Montana, and Oregon from the above 5 states?
I did not see such a limitation in the ruling (although I admit to just scanning it). Instead the ruling seemed to focus on the distinction between the permissibility of recording police officers versus other government officials.
Based on the page 5 and 6 description of Oregon statute 165.540(1)(c), loteck’s conclusion seems correct to me. Page 43 is the conclusion where the statute is reversed and remanded.
So this basically allows blanket surveillance of anything you do in public to the point that paparazzi or stalkers could just legally chase and livestream you every minute after you exit your home until you enter another private space?
I'll never understand why Americans believe there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. An alleyway is very different from a stage in the town square.
1) Americans place freedom of speech (including photography or recording things) very highly and are willing to suffer some damage in exchange for more freedom.
2) Limits on recording in public would very quickly and very easily be weaponized by police against minorities, leftists, and basically anyone else who resists the creeping tide of ---- well, you know, right wing politics.
Saving celebrity's from paparazzi sounds nice and good, but we're more worried about what happens when the police show up. Can we record them attacking us, or will that now be considered an additional crime that the policeman will get to punish us for? It's very easy to see our rigged Supreme Court ruling that police officers have "an expectation of privacy on the job" in light of your points.
In Canada you can record someone (phone call, in person, etc) if just one party consents to the recording. In other words, if I'm a phone call with someone, even if there are several people on the call, it's NOT illegal for me to record them, as long as I'm a participant in the call. It's called the "one party consent" exception. I have no obligation to ask, or tell the others on the call that I'm recording.
There are legitimate reasons for having one party consent legal. My experience with employer harassment has been that it’s extremely hard to prove discriminatory behavior without being able to record without consent.
In California you can record without consent if you have reasons to suspect a crime is going to be committed. It's not the most straightforward thing to get away with and you should work with a lawyer before you do it to be sure it will be accepted as evidence, but you can totally do it.
And this kind of thing, trouble with a boss/landlord/etc, is a lot more likely to personally impact the average person than any sort of PV-related scenario. Single party consent is a clear net positive for most people.
Good luck trying to record a phone call on any modern smartphone. They purposely make it nearly impossible, unless you want to use speakerphone and the analog hole.
And while it might feel counterintuitive how obvious a good idea it is, it becomes a lot more intuitive when you consider the contrary implications. You can not only be a party to something without being able to demonstrate what you observed, but you can be a party to something where any convincing accusation about your own involvement is equally compelling to your own recount by default. Even if you don’t realize you’re a party to anything in particular.
Being able to record your own experience is a matter of basic autonomy and self defense. Being denied it is a gift to anyone with the power or motivation to exploit that.
Edit: I didn’t even look at who was involved in the case. I am not remotely surprised to find the ruling favors political opponents, and I’m not swayed by that either. If anything, it’s better for everyone if PV has to play by the same rules as anyone they’re interacting with.
Oregon, where this is filed, also has one-party consent on phone calls. Considering the plaintiff, this is mostly about hidden cameras and surreptitious recording in person.
There are lots of other types of phones besides mobile phones (nowadays, usually implying VoIP somewhere in most places, but some countries still have analog landlines, too). Assuming that all phone calls are either made with Android or iOS is reductive to say the least...
This notably surround James O'Keefe's Project Veritas recording people, as the plaintiff suing the state.
The dissenting opinion here is somewhat long to reposte, but seems worthy, in my view:
> Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that because the majority does not dispute that the State has a significant interest in protecting the privacy of Oregonians who engage in conversations without notice that their comments are being recorded, the court’s analysis should be straightforward. First, principles of federalism require that the panel begin from a premise of reluctance to strike down a state statute. Next, following Supreme Court precedent, the panel should sever the two statutory exceptions [ed: felony endangering human lives, activities of police officers] that Project Veritas challenges, apply intermediate scrutiny to the content-neutral remainder, recognize that the statute is well- tailored to meet Oregon’s significant interest, and uphold section 165.540(1)(c) as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction. Judge Christen stated that the purpose Oregon advances is its significant interest in protecting participants from having their oral conversations recorded without their knowledge. The majority recasts the State’s interest as one in “protecting people’s conversational privacy from the speech of other individuals.” That reframing of the legislature’s purpose serves as the springboard for the majority’s reliance on an inapplicable line of Supreme Court authority that pertains to state action aimed at protecting people from unwanted commercial or political speech, not protection from speech-gathering activities like Project Veritas’s, which are qualitatively different because they appropriate the speech of others.
I wonder to what extent repeal might happen. Do the judges who struck this down intend to, in the absence of law, now allow 0 party consent recording? Can I just go around planting bugs around the city & start recording as many people as I can, unbeknownst to them?
I'd forgotten that Federal law's 1 party consent is as extensive as it is, & hadn't included that above. That is an important consideration.
To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about states creating their own privacy laws. Part of me agrees, that 1 party consent is probably all that's required, and to do more creates a danger that criminal activity can use the law to protect itself.
Oregon did exempt two specific classes of speech: any speech talking about a felony that endangers human life, and any speech by police officers. This gives the public some right to 1 party record really bad things.
What's so weird here is that the court used those exemptions to strike down the entire law. They said that since the law discriminates, since these people aren't protected, it jeopardizes their right to speech. And they used that to invalidate all of the state's attempt to create additional privacy for citizens. I'm not sure how I feel on 2 party consent entirely, but this seemed like an attempt to create a somewhat balanced, privacy-sensitive approach, and seeing it taken down like this makes me feel embarrassed for the courts, that the federal courts would so brazenly & broadly undo the state legislature. I'm undecided about 2 part consent, but this feels like a vicious stroke by the courts.
That already exists - it’s called a video camera on almost every public area. Recording in public areas, unless the owner prohibits it, is almost always legal.
This primarily concerned individuals. Two people couldn’t meet and secretly record a conversation with the other without consent. Recording a private conversation you are personally involved in, without notification, is legal in almost all states.
Notably most video cameras don't include audio. Because it's a legal liability & it's simply easier to prove your camera cant record audio than to have a feature that's disabled. Audio recording is incredibly un-popular. But yes, still, in quite a number of states it's possible to go around putting audio recordings in public. 0 party consent in public.
But even that's not what Veritas did at all. They went into private offices of other people & secretly recorded conservations. People being asked questions thought they were dealing with crazy people & were afraid for their safety, they have testified. Giles dressed as a prostitute & O'Keefe semi-claimed to be a boyfriend, and walked into offices in 7 states (and DC) and pressured staff into talking about illegal businesses. They did as much as they could to, while secretly recording, get people to say bad things. One person being attacked like swore under oath that they feared for their safety & were scared. One said they thought it was a joke. One of them played along, feeling sorry for Giles who said she was being injured by her pimp, and then called the police because she was propositioned about setting up under-age sex trade operations. This farce brought down one of the biggest international collectivist organization on the planet, by ambushing these people with secret recordings & cherry picking the worst things to hurt them with.
This whole case is about people recording each other in private. That's the whole purpose of this law: to defend against assault by advanced persistent Vertias like aggressor threats (and lower/simpler forms of scummery).
Edit: I misread “legal” as “illegal” in the last sentence.
Aren’t most states single-party consent? I know mine is, for which I’m grateful. I regularly record “private conversations” with state officials after having had incidents with them.
This smells like a pickle that SCOTUS will need to address.
Just running it through my head and I feel like I could argue it in every direction… and the details of the case here make for some interesting wrinkles and a lot of second order type effects that could occur without some good guidance here.
In general, SCOTUS wouldn't tend to pick this up unless another circuit has ruled the other way (in which case, yeah, they generally would to prevent unequal application of the law in different states).
The simple approach is to default to single party consent but allow explicit nonconsent. In other words nobody can be recorded without their knowledge, but if they’re informed a recording is being made then remaining in the conversation is consent.
Strongly disagree. There are so many situations in which abusive people (employers, romantic partners, politicians) need to be caught unaware or they won't be caught at all.
Obviously there are lines to be drawn when we are talking about the government recording citizens. Warrants are an important check on power for this. But any individual should be able to record (mostly) anything. At the very least, it can save you money when a customer service rep claims they never said something. At most, it can keep you out of prison.
That isn’t single party consent it is all party consent. Single party consent is anyone in the conversation may record without telling others about it. Or a third party may record with the approval of any one who is in the conversation.
> Plaintiff Project Veritas, a non-profit media organization that engages in undercover investigative journalism, states that it documents matters of public concern by making unannounced audiovisual recordings of conversations, often in places open to the public.
This has got to be the single rosiest description of Project Veritas ever.
Who cares who the plaintiff was? If they operate in bad faith, so much the better[0]. I'd be inclined to see this decision as a boon to progressive organizations wanting to expose hypocritical conduct. Again, this applies in places with no expectation of privacy.
On general principle, it seems like a no-brainer. I get being disappointed if your ox is gored, but being recorded by your interlocutor in a public place where anyone else could record shouldn't be a problem for any individual or organization that adheres to its stated principles. I'm more disturbed that this is somehow perceived as an attack against progressive organizations, when frankly it should be celebrated as a powerful tool to expose covert discrimination and other wrongdoing.
Is it rosy because the interviews reveal information you don’t like? Or because you think the information is attained unethically? Simply saying “I don’t like them” doesn’t advance a conversation much.
The kinds of money this "non-profit" org gets is almost like they're getting funded covertly from foreign states, looking to interfere with american politics.
Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior. Do I really want to record that domestic incident for use in a divorce later? What if it backfires? Should I really record my boss saying that? What if there’s a 20% chance it backfires? Etc.
>Banning recording private conversations without consent by one of the conversation members was always weird to me because of the “chilling effect” it has in people’s minds about recording perfectly legal things, or potential criminal behavior
I've never liked or thought 2-party consent requirements made sense because it felt like an extremely overly broad restriction on our own potential memories, discrimination based on mental ability, and with negative implication for future prosthetics. Like, why should someone with a photographic memory inherently have a right to have better recollection of their own personal interactions then someone with memory loss problems who wants to use a life log so they can go back over the day later? What about future implants and such? I'd much prefer if the law was more fine grained and focused on the negative edges. Like, perhaps consent would be required for sharing with the general public in cases not of public interest (in the legally defined sense), or that if one wanted to share any snippets the other party could demand the complete recording be shared as well. Or there could be technical requirements, like all future recording hardware must time stamp and cryptographically sign each frame so that any alteration is trivial to detect. Basically go after worries of "cherry picking" specifically. There could be specific protections for highly sensitive conversations like medical, or to address power imbalances (clients/customers/patients vs service providers).
But giving any party to a conversation a total universal veto over anyone else having a personal record by default never felt right and I'm glad I don't live in one of those states. After all, everyone can (and does!) demand NDAs or the like as they wish.
Yeah I was thinking this kind of ban only passed because too many government officials were being caught saying some shit on tape and once it is illegal to have recorded it then it’s no longer valid evidence.
> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified?
Actually, sometimes, yes; from both homeowners and occasionally Police, despite their reputation, with sometimes deadly consequences. You are afraid to pull the trigger if you have no idea what the jury will think.
However, there is a difference in that the use of violence to defend yourself is more or less the same in all states, give or take Castle doctrine. Oregon and a few others are unique.
But I would like to add, because your analogy is so strained, violence is not speech.
> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified?
It can, as can literally any law when you're brushing up into the boundaries of a gray area.
The principal question is:
"Do we want to live in a society where violence is usually allowed?" - Definitely not.
"Do we want to live in a society where recording people without their consent is usually allowed?" - Maybe? Depends on who you ask. Unlike violence, our social mores consider this almost entirely to be a gray area.
Most Concealed/Carry Firearms courses discuss this very area. When can you brandish a weapon? when can you show you have it without brandishing? When can you use it? Its so complex, I choose to not carry in my state most of the time because of the opportunity for mistake, and therefore possible prosecution of gray area laws that mostly hinge on a prosecutor choosing or not choosing to proceed.
That’s not the situation here. This is about whether I can record my romantic partner when I am in a private conversation with her, not in public, without her consent.
Or, your boss, without him suing you for recording a private comment about making the office whiter.
> The law provides two exceptions relevant to this appeal: (1) section 165.540(1)(c) does not apply to a person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life, Or. Rev. Stat § 165.540(5)(a); and (2) section 165.540(1)(c) allows a person to record a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant if the recording is made while the officer is performing official duties and meets other criteria.
Readit News
Which is only 5 states: Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Massachusetts and Oregon.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/03/2...
In Switzerland this only applies if you are in public at a large gathering or event where the use of cameras etc. is expected. In any other situation in public, if you single out a specific person (even if their face is not visible but they are identifiable by clothing/tattoo or vehicle registration etc.) in a video you are violating their privacy and are required to get consent. This consent can also be revoked at any time later.
I feel like it’s a case of the language we speak shaping our interpretation of what is just, and doing so in such a way that it’s hard to even explain what we’re now missing.
The problem, in so many words, is that these days the act of being in public is public. That’s a weird sentence to write, and I’m not sure how else to put it.
Previously, the memory of any public act was restricted to those who were there to observe it at the time. Any acts in public were by themselves public. Acts in private were private. There was a third quasi-state: anonymous isn’t the right word, because you were always identifiable, but by happenstance you just weren’t. You were in public, but not publicised. Recognisable, but not recognised. Observable, but not observed. By definition though you were always in public, never in private.
Modern technology has somewhat erased the third state by slowly but surely eroding the cases in which you are not observed, tracked, recorded, or identified, by some technology or another. It’s made public very public, if you excuse the unavoidable pleonasm.
There’s no good word for the third state, that I can think of, and it makes me sad.
Nowadays technology might mean that someone anonymous gets identified by a third party using automation. So it will become public knowledge, indexable on the person, as to where they were and what they were doing. But that was going to happen anyway. I'm not sure restricting recordings in the first place is really going to stop that.
Because there's not really a whole lot of public places aside from parts of national and state parks where one could reasonably expect to not be on a camera most of the time, right?
I'll never understand why Americans believe there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. An alleyway is very different from a stage in the town square.
Deleted Comment
1) Americans place freedom of speech (including photography or recording things) very highly and are willing to suffer some damage in exchange for more freedom.
2) Limits on recording in public would very quickly and very easily be weaponized by police against minorities, leftists, and basically anyone else who resists the creeping tide of ---- well, you know, right wing politics.
Saving celebrity's from paparazzi sounds nice and good, but we're more worried about what happens when the police show up. Can we record them attacking us, or will that now be considered an additional crime that the policeman will get to punish us for? It's very easy to see our rigged Supreme Court ruling that police officers have "an expectation of privacy on the job" in light of your points.
I often use it.
Being able to record your own experience is a matter of basic autonomy and self defense. Being denied it is a gift to anyone with the power or motivation to exploit that.
Edit: I didn’t even look at who was involved in the case. I am not remotely surprised to find the ruling favors political opponents, and I’m not swayed by that either. If anything, it’s better for everyone if PV has to play by the same rules as anyone they’re interacting with.
Deleted Comment
The dissenting opinion here is somewhat long to reposte, but seems worthy, in my view:
> Dissenting, Judge Christen stated that because the majority does not dispute that the State has a significant interest in protecting the privacy of Oregonians who engage in conversations without notice that their comments are being recorded, the court’s analysis should be straightforward. First, principles of federalism require that the panel begin from a premise of reluctance to strike down a state statute. Next, following Supreme Court precedent, the panel should sever the two statutory exceptions [ed: felony endangering human lives, activities of police officers] that Project Veritas challenges, apply intermediate scrutiny to the content-neutral remainder, recognize that the statute is well- tailored to meet Oregon’s significant interest, and uphold section 165.540(1)(c) as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction. Judge Christen stated that the purpose Oregon advances is its significant interest in protecting participants from having their oral conversations recorded without their knowledge. The majority recasts the State’s interest as one in “protecting people’s conversational privacy from the speech of other individuals.” That reframing of the legislature’s purpose serves as the springboard for the majority’s reliance on an inapplicable line of Supreme Court authority that pertains to state action aimed at protecting people from unwanted commercial or political speech, not protection from speech-gathering activities like Project Veritas’s, which are qualitatively different because they appropriate the speech of others.
I wonder to what extent repeal might happen. Do the judges who struck this down intend to, in the absence of law, now allow 0 party consent recording? Can I just go around planting bugs around the city & start recording as many people as I can, unbeknownst to them?
Their behavior amounts to various other crimes such as libel, fraud, etc. Use those laws to punish their bad behavior.
To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about states creating their own privacy laws. Part of me agrees, that 1 party consent is probably all that's required, and to do more creates a danger that criminal activity can use the law to protect itself.
Oregon did exempt two specific classes of speech: any speech talking about a felony that endangers human life, and any speech by police officers. This gives the public some right to 1 party record really bad things.
What's so weird here is that the court used those exemptions to strike down the entire law. They said that since the law discriminates, since these people aren't protected, it jeopardizes their right to speech. And they used that to invalidate all of the state's attempt to create additional privacy for citizens. I'm not sure how I feel on 2 party consent entirely, but this seemed like an attempt to create a somewhat balanced, privacy-sensitive approach, and seeing it taken down like this makes me feel embarrassed for the courts, that the federal courts would so brazenly & broadly undo the state legislature. I'm undecided about 2 part consent, but this feels like a vicious stroke by the courts.
Make of that what you will, just putting it out there so you and anyone passing by aren't using outdated information.
This primarily concerned individuals. Two people couldn’t meet and secretly record a conversation with the other without consent. Recording a private conversation you are personally involved in, without notification, is legal in almost all states.
> In most cases, it is not legal to record audio on security cameras unless all parties are aware that you may be recording audio. https://www.upcounsel.com/audio-surveillance-laws-by-state
Notably most video cameras don't include audio. Because it's a legal liability & it's simply easier to prove your camera cant record audio than to have a feature that's disabled. Audio recording is incredibly un-popular. But yes, still, in quite a number of states it's possible to go around putting audio recordings in public. 0 party consent in public.
But even that's not what Veritas did at all. They went into private offices of other people & secretly recorded conservations. People being asked questions thought they were dealing with crazy people & were afraid for their safety, they have testified. Giles dressed as a prostitute & O'Keefe semi-claimed to be a boyfriend, and walked into offices in 7 states (and DC) and pressured staff into talking about illegal businesses. They did as much as they could to, while secretly recording, get people to say bad things. One person being attacked like swore under oath that they feared for their safety & were scared. One said they thought it was a joke. One of them played along, feeling sorry for Giles who said she was being injured by her pimp, and then called the police because she was propositioned about setting up under-age sex trade operations. This farce brought down one of the biggest international collectivist organization on the planet, by ambushing these people with secret recordings & cherry picking the worst things to hurt them with.
This whole case is about people recording each other in private. That's the whole purpose of this law: to defend against assault by advanced persistent Vertias like aggressor threats (and lower/simpler forms of scummery).
Aren’t most states single-party consent? I know mine is, for which I’m grateful. I regularly record “private conversations” with state officials after having had incidents with them.
Deleted Comment
Just running it through my head and I feel like I could argue it in every direction… and the details of the case here make for some interesting wrinkles and a lot of second order type effects that could occur without some good guidance here.
Obviously there are lines to be drawn when we are talking about the government recording citizens. Warrants are an important check on power for this. But any individual should be able to record (mostly) anything. At the very least, it can save you money when a customer service rep claims they never said something. At most, it can keep you out of prison.
This has got to be the single rosiest description of Project Veritas ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
On general principle, it seems like a no-brainer. I get being disappointed if your ox is gored, but being recorded by your interlocutor in a public place where anyone else could record shouldn't be a problem for any individual or organization that adheres to its stated principles. I'm more disturbed that this is somehow perceived as an attack against progressive organizations, when frankly it should be celebrated as a powerful tool to expose covert discrimination and other wrongdoing.
[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-project-veritas-member-matt...
Dead Comment
I've never liked or thought 2-party consent requirements made sense because it felt like an extremely overly broad restriction on our own potential memories, discrimination based on mental ability, and with negative implication for future prosthetics. Like, why should someone with a photographic memory inherently have a right to have better recollection of their own personal interactions then someone with memory loss problems who wants to use a life log so they can go back over the day later? What about future implants and such? I'd much prefer if the law was more fine grained and focused on the negative edges. Like, perhaps consent would be required for sharing with the general public in cases not of public interest (in the legally defined sense), or that if one wanted to share any snippets the other party could demand the complete recording be shared as well. Or there could be technical requirements, like all future recording hardware must time stamp and cryptographically sign each frame so that any alteration is trivial to detect. Basically go after worries of "cherry picking" specifically. There could be specific protections for highly sensitive conversations like medical, or to address power imbalances (clients/customers/patients vs service providers).
But giving any party to a conversation a total universal veto over anyone else having a personal record by default never felt right and I'm glad I don't live in one of those states. After all, everyone can (and does!) demand NDAs or the like as they wish.
What's the difference?
Actually, sometimes, yes; from both homeowners and occasionally Police, despite their reputation, with sometimes deadly consequences. You are afraid to pull the trigger if you have no idea what the jury will think.
However, there is a difference in that the use of violence to defend yourself is more or less the same in all states, give or take Castle doctrine. Oregon and a few others are unique.
But I would like to add, because your analogy is so strained, violence is not speech.
It can, as can literally any law when you're brushing up into the boundaries of a gray area.
The principal question is:
"Do we want to live in a society where violence is usually allowed?" - Definitely not.
"Do we want to live in a society where recording people without their consent is usually allowed?" - Maybe? Depends on who you ask. Unlike violence, our social mores consider this almost entirely to be a gray area.
Or, your boss, without him suing you for recording a private comment about making the office whiter.
> The law provides two exceptions relevant to this appeal: (1) section 165.540(1)(c) does not apply to a person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life, Or. Rev. Stat § 165.540(5)(a); and (2) section 165.540(1)(c) allows a person to record a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant if the recording is made while the officer is performing official duties and meets other criteria.