On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 02:11:13PM -0500, R0b0t1 wrote:
> Hello friends!
> 
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Christopher Díaz Riveros
> <chrisadr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > El lun, 02-04-2018 a las 09:23 -0600, Daniel Robbins escribió:
> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Christopher Díaz Riveros
> >> <chrisadr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > _You_ can say that this is your Burden of proof that mgorny is not
> >> > capable of being a Council member, but in the same line, _your
> >> > post_
> >> > shows that you are neither in position to be a good Council member
> >> > or
> >> > project lead, at least that's just _my_ opinion about this post.
> >>
> >> I am perfectly happy with you having that opinion, because I have
> >> never had any intention of being a Council member or project lead,
> >> nor "returning BDFL" of Gentoo that mgorny insinuates.
> >>
> >
> > No Daniel, but the fact is that you have history with Gentoo, even when
> > you don't see yourself trying to be a "leader", you need to act like
> > one.
> >
> > This reminds me some horrible local news from my country, where a
> > congressman had to made public some videos about corruption that we
> > suffer as country, that ended up in the resignation of our president.
> > Maybe he had to leave, but making pressure by using private videos and
> > then release them to public, was definetly not he correct way to do
> > that.
> >
> > This is the fact from you fact-list:
> >
> > You showed the whole mailing list (and leaved a permanent tracking
> > file) a conversation that was not previously seen by ComRel (which is
> > the project who you should try to contact before making this kind of
> > information public). Even when you are "just another user" here... I
> > mean, you run Funtoo, you are a public leader, and how could I possibly
> > trust my leader if he shows private conversations publicly... that's a
> > fact no matter with whom the conversation is, or what is it about.
> >
> 
> While in general I have no business posting here, I think I should
> rephrase what it seems you are saying:
> 
> "People should not be held accountable for their actions, because that
> might make them feel bad."
> 
> I would be hard pressed to find people who agree.
> 
> 
> Using the (US) legal system as a guide, if I break the law to obtain
> evidence of someone *else* breaking the law, that evidence is
> admissible (if I remember correctly) because I am not the government.
> However, it is likely I would still be prosecuted for whatever law
> that I broke, though in some areas any charges might be waived by
> statute.
> 
> In a semi-related vein, the majority of US states do not require that
> all parties agree to have their correspondence recorded for any of the
> participants to record that correspondence.
> 
> 
> It stands to reason that if someone sees you behaving in a manner they
> think others should be made aware of, society already supports making
> others aware of those actions, even if custom would be to keep them
> private.
> 
> Cheers,
>      R0b0t1
> 

Some states such as Washington are known as "two-party", meaning that
both parties to communications must consent to recording. This is often
abused by corporations in this state by forcing customers to agree to
*being* recorded, but refusing to help customers if they don't turn off
their recording apparatus. I am unsure of the legal precedent, but
practiced law is often different from written law.

Legal Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

As for corporate behavior, I worked for a company who did that for phone
support and operated in Washington state.

In short, it really depends on which state you're in.

~zlg