I asked this question in the law site, but I was told it has more to do with politics (same question in the law site).
Let's assume A and B have a discussion about a business deal and A will record the conversation without B's knowledge. Later on, they have a disagreement that takes them to court. Let's also assume that the recording is long enough to be unambiguous and can't be taken out of context.
In some states, B should consent to the recording but I fail to understand the motivation behind that law:
- A is already 'recording' the conversation in his brain. It may be a fuzzy and somewhat unreliable recording, but the conversation is nonetheless saved somewhere.
- If the court is trying to establish 'the truth', nothing could be better than a recording of the situation; why rely on 2 fuzzy biased recollections of the events when a single recording will provide reliable information.
- One could argue that if A is wrong, he will not produce the recording, but if he's right he will product it, therefore B is at a disadvantage; but maybe A has a much better memory than B, or vice versa, so there is no true equality when it comes to event recollection and we'd just be adding a lot of random to the process.
- A could think that since he's not allowed to produce a recording, he could do a transcript of his memory, aided by the audio recording; but since he knows the 'truth', having his testimony valued at the same level as B's pure memory recollection is putting A as a disadvantage since B's memory, not matter how good, wouldn't rival a recording.
I can't understand the motivation of 2 consents at all. Can someone explain it to me?