> The records also showed undercover agents surveilling a virtual meeting at Hunter College in New York [...] ; a meeting at a labor center in Minneapolis

> The documents indicate that agents made audio recordings of the events.

For anyone else wondering (particularly if you're accustomed to it) it looks like neither NY nor MN are two-party consent ones for recording things.

▲

KennyBlanken 3 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

Terr_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Hey Junior Woodchuck Law Expert:

The charitable interpretation is that you meant to humorously qualify what you were about to say next, so that people judge its accuracy in a kind way.

In that case, a trailing "here" (to refer to the speaker) would help ensure people see it that way... as opposed to a weird and unprompted insult.

(The rest of your post already has a subthread for it.)

▲

docdeek 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> one party consent doesn't necessarily authorize you to secretly record a meeting just because you're present.

Isn't that exactly what one party consent laws allow you to do?

	▲	3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]