• hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    Not sure where you live, and I don’t know much about US law, but for me, it’s §203 and §206 StGB. Get’s you either fined, or up to a maximum of 1 or 5 years in jail. And especially §206 is super clear and specifically mentions electronic letters. I can assure you, I’m 100% correct on that.

    • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      I’m from Canada and live in the UK. You’re allowed to, barring some very specific circumstances, record or repeat any conversation you are party to. If you were posting a DM convo that your friend was having, taking pictures of their screen while they were out of the room and then putting it online. You’re fucked. If you are an active participant of a conversation/DM chain then as party to said communication you have the legal right to tell anyone, record it for reporting to the news, or the cops, or your gf.

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        The internet seems to suggest it’s illegal in the UK, for example to share recorded phone calls. According to the first page of Google, recording itself is fine, while sharing or making them public isn’t. But I haven’t looked up the specifics.

    • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      It depends on the state. My state is a one party state, meaning any person that is party to a private conversation can legally reveal everything in it to the public.

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 days ago

        Yeah, I figured we’d need to track the criminal down to a specific contry and state and then ask a lawyer to make sure. We’re super strict here. If someone uses the voice recorder app or takes a video with sound in a private conversation, that’s already a serious thing. Of course similar restrictions apply to phone calls, letters and electronic conversation.

        Reading US law isn’t easy for me, I mean there’s always a lot involved and then there are laws on two or three levels plus exemptions and additional rules… I wonder if such a freedom in a one party state applies to people like whistleblowers and other unruly people as well…

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 days ago

          Of course similar restrictions apply to phone calls, letters and electronic conversation.

          I am sure US mega corps are complying and the law is enforced against them

        • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 days ago

          On paper, whistleblowers have federal protection from prosecution. In reality, however, if you blow the whistle on a rich person, a corporation, or the government, the government will go out of its way to punish you and make an example. See Edward Snowden, who is still wanted by the government, despite having revealed the government was engaged in what was then highly illegal espionage against their own citizens. The government responded by making that invasion of privacy legal.

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        Uh, yes. I messed up the numbers. It’s §201 for audio recordings, §201a for private pictures, §202 for documents and letters with added paragraphs for “data” and electronic data and §206 specific for communication. Idk why I wrote §203, that’s for officials and doctors as you said. I meant §202. But yeah, the translation seems pretty accurate. Thanks for the link, I didn’t know we had that available. 😊
        I included §206 since that’s likely what an admin is concerned with. And we mixed that in earlier in the argument. But I believe that paragraph is just a specialized and more harsh version of §202, to increase the maximum penalty from 1 year to 5 years, if it’s your job to handle other people’s communication. Which might apply to Fediverse admins, but it’ll fall back to the other paragraph anyway.

        • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 days ago

          Again, 202 is about opening other people’s mail/messages, with the electronic subsection being about accessing their digital messages when you aren’t supposed to. And section 206 wouldn’t apply to Drag at all, since they aren’t even an admin. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing legally wrong with sharing “private” messages that are sent to you.