English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Wiretap laws have an important place in protecting privacy interests by preventing eavesdropping, but some states have taken privacy protections too far. Florida stands with a minority of states that impose a harsh “all-party consent” requirement, only permitting secret recording of a private conversation where all parties to a communication consent. The majority of states only impose a “single-party consent” requirement, which allows a person to secretly record any conversation he or she is a party to. Under the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of Florida’s wiretap law, application of the stringent all-party consent requirement harms victims of crime, results in the suppression of highly probative evidence, hampers social exchange, and prevents the public from exposing private and state misconduct. In comparison, single-party consent serves valid privacy interests but recognizes the benefits that secret recording can provide to society. This article explores why Florida needs to change its wiretap statute to singleparty consent.

From “He Said, She Said” to “He Said, She-and-Her iPhone-Said”: Florida’s All-Party Consent Requirement Needs an Update