Keep in mind that without one-party-notification being a thing, undercover journalists like Project Veritas could not do the noble work they do on a regular basis. It's far more valuable than just for creepy motherfuckers
Had this happen in school this year. The guy realized this trade wasn't for him so he recorded all the audio of our class for 6 weeks on his laptop without telling anybody. He then used it against our Professor and myself when we were cutting up before class and during breaks. We're grown ass men in a trade school, of course we're going to say some things that aren't appropriate in school.
I asked a friend of mine who is a Marshal and he explained the one party two party thing to me but said if he were to have ever left the room with the laptop recording then its considered a bug and that's where he would be in trouble.
Long story short, the college refunded him his money and said bye.
Honestly I really don't mind voyeurism. I don't see the harm in it. That said, I don't know if there are correlations between voyeurism and escalation to harmful acts; if that's a thing then obvs fewer harmful acts please.
I'd kinda be flattered if someone would voyeur me, honestly. :>
She just made the rounds on some radio shows promoting her new podcast. She's so cringe and dumb. She was talking about podcasting like it was 2005. "I really think podcasting is gonna be big. It's just a great new platform."
Remember when Katie Couric intentionally edited interview footage to make it look like she stumped a gun club with a question about background checks? And then they released the full audio that they secretly recorded to prove that she did it?
Pepe farm remembers.
Edit: Also I think it's interesting to note that I didn't remember the name of the interviewer or the name of the gun club, and I was unable to find it on google because they've probably memory holed it. However, I went to Duck Duck Go and was able to find it immediately on my first search. I think that's very telling.
Oh yeah. From day one Google's whole deal was manipulating search results for money. Way too many people never understood that that's how the site worked.
I remember being bothered, waaay back in the day when Yahoo was the king of search engines, when all of a sudden every single big broadcast news company, paper, and magazine all at the same time suddenly started using the word "google" as a verb in casual conversation.
It feels normal to most people now to hear the phrase "I googled it". If you're not old enough to remember, you might assume that happened organically, but I watched it roll out in real time. Not a single person I knew spoke like that until AFTER all the media companies started doing it in every broadcast and article. It took about six months of constant work to get it cemented into the public speech patterns. Yahoo didn't know what hit them.
YES!!!!
I've been asking for YEARS, "Why doesn't anyone ever just record the whole thing themselves to show how they use BS editing to trick people?"
Agree. Easiest thing to do. Make interviewer sign agreement that if Trump wishes he can release his unedited version .
why would you need to have the interviewer sign an agreement?
Remember this was inside the White House. Anyone entering signs a release form. I would assume there are cameras everywhere inside the WH.
Keep in mind that without one-party-notification being a thing, undercover journalists like Project Veritas could not do the noble work they do on a regular basis. It's far more valuable than just for creepy motherfuckers
Had this happen in school this year. The guy realized this trade wasn't for him so he recorded all the audio of our class for 6 weeks on his laptop without telling anybody. He then used it against our Professor and myself when we were cutting up before class and during breaks. We're grown ass men in a trade school, of course we're going to say some things that aren't appropriate in school.
I asked a friend of mine who is a Marshal and he explained the one party two party thing to me but said if he were to have ever left the room with the laptop recording then its considered a bug and that's where he would be in trouble.
Long story short, the college refunded him his money and said bye.
Honestly I really don't mind voyeurism. I don't see the harm in it. That said, I don't know if there are correlations between voyeurism and escalation to harmful acts; if that's a thing then obvs fewer harmful acts please.
I'd kinda be flattered if someone would voyeur me, honestly. :>
They make the interviewee sign a talent release. In which they waive basically all rights.
Standard fare for anything in the entertainment industry, beware if you’re ever given one.
He used to be hilarious, man. Politics ruined so many good comedians. People need to stay in their lane.
His “god is for idiots” bit was the best.
Alex Jones did that with that girl who was bleeding out of her wherever
She disappeared into irrelevancy.
She just made the rounds on some radio shows promoting her new podcast. She's so cringe and dumb. She was talking about podcasting like it was 2005. "I really think podcasting is gonna be big. It's just a great new platform."
Stupid bitch. I'd still hit it though.
Alex Jones did this also.
Remember when Katie Couric intentionally edited interview footage to make it look like she stumped a gun club with a question about background checks? And then they released the full audio that they secretly recorded to prove that she did it?
Pepe farm remembers.
Edit: Also I think it's interesting to note that I didn't remember the name of the interviewer or the name of the gun club, and I was unable to find it on google because they've probably memory holed it. However, I went to Duck Duck Go and was able to find it immediately on my first search. I think that's very telling.
Oh yeah. From day one Google's whole deal was manipulating search results for money. Way too many people never understood that that's how the site worked.
I remember being bothered, waaay back in the day when Yahoo was the king of search engines, when all of a sudden every single big broadcast news company, paper, and magazine all at the same time suddenly started using the word "google" as a verb in casual conversation.
It feels normal to most people now to hear the phrase "I googled it". If you're not old enough to remember, you might assume that happened organically, but I watched it roll out in real time. Not a single person I knew spoke like that until AFTER all the media companies started doing it in every broadcast and article. It took about six months of constant work to get it cemented into the public speech patterns. Yahoo didn't know what hit them.
I’ll have to ask Jeeves about that