Dig Deeper Community Forum

Some countries have laws that say you can't record peoples' voices without their consent. I think that's moralfag nonsense, with one exception:

An argument against non-consensual voice recordings is ironically the law itself. People might engage in speech disliked by the government, and voice recordings could be use to snitch such speech to authorities.

Besides that, voice recordings can provide evidence of badly behaving people such as teachers who bully students (example), people making threats over telephone, scammers, and helps to expose con artists like DuhPhxnk, who deserve public humiliation.

You'd think you could outsmart people who bully you by collecting verbal evidence? Well, no. Such stupid laws protect the bullies.

For example, in 2024, laws against non-consensual call recording prevented the German video maker Klengan from collecting evidence about legal threats made to him by Dagmara Ochmanczyk (known as "Dagi Bee" on YouTube) and her husband Eugen Kazakov, so he refused to accept phone calls by them anymore. (source)

Such laws of course also serve the purpose of one-way surveillance.

Certain exceptions allow for recording conversations without consent.
Law Enforcement and Emergency Services: Under California Penal Code 633, police officers and government officials acting in their official capacity are exempt from the two-party consent rule.

(source: legalclarity.org)

"Rules for thee, but not for me."

But it's not just for evidence against badly behaving people. Another use would be replaying parts of conversations that were not clearly understood by the listener in the moment, to improve understanding, and preserving memories with beloved people. Should you really need the consent of a terminally ill person when you record your final telephone conversations with them? I don't think so.

DELETED BY USER.

LoadingXML wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2026 6:47 pm Said guy with no objective morality to begin with.

for someone with real objective morality such as me, recording people's voice without consent falls into "spying" in sense that the caller is giving you, and only you this speech, and doesn't (in most cases) want anyone but you to have it.

What determines whether it is "objective?" It's not objective, it's your subjective view.

If you don't trust someone with something, you shouldn't say it in the first place, just like you wouldn't tell them in real life, regardless of whether they are recording it.

If he bullied students, like a group of 5 students in one go, then they are all witnesses that can go to administrative office and signal him.

Video and audio evidence is stronger than any number of witnesses. The 5 students can be accused of "being partisian", meaning "being in the same team", having made up a story against a teacher they dislike, so the 5 witnesses count as one, and having embellished the story.
See also: You Live In A Dangerous Age - So Get Insurance - Coach Red Pill (CRP Classics) by Gonzalo Lira.

Of course, I wouldn't recommend anyone to do this if they live in a country with crappy laws that prohibit it.

https://i.redd.it/j5ufwnlzwhq61.jpg

(Image omitted due to large size) Wait, embedding images from Reddit works? I didn't know that! The image belongs to this post.

If the teachers who are mean to their students think their behavior is justified, if they are proud of it, they shouldn't mind having it publicly exposed.

Surely concerning lol, usually a guy who is a real threat doesn't call over phone to threaten you.

It can also happen in real life, for example a woman can threaten a man with false claims of so-called "sexual harassment" (which isn't clearly defined and based on the woman's feelings), knowing that in this society, most people would side with the woman. See the aforementioned video by Gonzalo Lira.

lol

Don't you find Jim Browning and Scammer Payback funny? For example, Accessing a scammer's PC, 4:05, where the scammers insulted Jim Browning, realizing they had been caught.

By being a rapper, you are already humiliated, like you don't need more.

Yes, it is hilarious to see con artists publicly humiliated.
If you think all rap is bad, you don't know Kollegah yet.

Meanwhile I got a story in germany, about someone threatening a woman to expose her images if she doesn't marry him, she told her husband, and with help of german police, made a phone call and made him expose himself live.

So this is idiotic really...

Even if there is a possibility of getting them to expose themselves, not being able to record them still limits your options for holding them accountable. You have to get police involved to hold them accountable. You have no evidence to share to a friend or relative, to warn them.

And by "her images", do you mean unclothed pictures? I think the man would hurt his own reputation if he did this, not that of the woman, except if the woman is cheating or committing paternity fraud. This would be an effective treatment against such women, see:

• Guy Caught His Girlfriend Cheating And Reacts Perfectly Instead
• Groom Exposes Bride and Best man (movie scene)

In these situations you could SIMPLY GET THE CONSENT.

Morally speaking, why would their consent matter if they are dead soon anyway? It doesn't hurt them, does it?

as for the terminally ill person, I found you recording him instead of ACTUALLY CARING ABOUT THE SITUATION is rather delusional.

Preserving memories with them = caring about them.

DELETED BY USER.

There are more ways your recorded voice can be used against you. For example, in the age of AI, it could be used to pretend you said something you actually didn't, and punish you for it with big state courts and big state prisons.

Today, we are forced to rely on a big state to decide what's acceptable or not, and it doesn't work. The pleb has no way to prevent a witchhunt by stateheads or whoever else that has a higher position than him.

We have been recorded (by CCTV) and analyzed by AI for over a decade. Then, it's all in the hands of the big state to decide what to do with it. I'd say it's a little too late to worry whether someone can be recorded without his consent.

Anarchism resolves this entire set of problems because there are no laws, so any undesirable behavior can be resisted right when it happens. It covers both cases of legit usage of recording (resisting bullies) and the illegit. In fact, with the bullies, there wouldn't even be a need to record his voice. He could be handled right there, without the need to go to some representative or whoever. If it's a school bully, eliminating forced schooling would also become an option that is not available when a big state exists.

Basically you're trying to solve problems on a level they can't truly be solved. As long as a big state exists we will get all these issues and all these discussions about how to solve them when it's truly the big state bringing them into existence and the big state deciding the "possible responses". Modern people have offloaded all the decision making, punishments, etc. to the state, and already lost right there. To have a discussion like this, or "what should be done with litterers" or anyone else, hurts us all in the end. It gives up power to an entity that is sure to use it against everyone at some point. It destroys our own internal justice system.

A good use for covert voice and video recording would be investigative undercover journalism, which could be used to, for example, whistleblow backroom meetings of corrupt big pharma corporations.

Whenever someone asks "Why have I never heard about [topic]?" - there might be laws preventing it. Not just recording, but also leaking corporate secrets to the public (that the public deserves to know) might be considered "espionage", even though it is a precious public service. (Of course, I can't recommend anyone to take such risks.)

The news say things like "hidden cameras are used by creepy celibate men to harass women without their knowledge" (example), while hiding the real reason: inhibiting investigative journalism.

Those in power wouldn't outlaw it if it didn't benefit them in some way.

Voice and video recordings could also be used in defense against false accusations of "sexual harassment", or whatever neologisms people come up with.

Related video by Coach Red Pill: You Live In A Dangerous Age—So Get Insurance

Example for hidden camera use from 2013: German documentary filmmaker Jürgen Rose infiltrated the factory of a Mercedes-Benz subcontractor with hidden cameras, to show how their factory workers were treated poorly. His documentary was aired on mainstream television (ARD)!

Mercedes-Benz sued Jürgen as a result, but the court surprisingly sided with him. (source article)

What used to be considered a public service in exposing corruption would nowadays be considered "espionage" and/or a "data protection violation".

The red pill guy is wrong pretty much on all counts. The majority of women make awful partners in any relationships, not just romantic ones. So it's not a question of a few bad apples accusing men of sex crimes, rather why the incentives for most women are not to yell on first sight, despite their inherent advantage. For men, being slandered does not require them even meeting personally, so why women are trusted with bureaucracy and registers?

That's not the worst of it either. Dealing with the female sex is akin to doing time in a cell block with no fighting skills. You are bound to constantly second guess yourself:

• Did I glance for a half-second longer than I could?
• Was my posture off?
• Don't become distracted for any moment.
• Had I taken on a bad debt?

digdeeper wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2026 12:34 am If it's a school bully, eliminating forced schooling would also become an option that is not available when a big state exists.

If decent people leave school for fear of bullies, only bullies will get an education. Conceding territory to the worst is at best a temporary measure.