system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Two-party consent recording laws are harmful and should be overturned.

I was reading a topic recently about abuse victims being unable to record their abuser due to two-party consent laws and it led me to read up on the topic. 

Eleven US states have some version of this legal concept, which generally says that these states "require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful." The conversations in question generally relate to those with an expectation of privacy; eg, a conversation with a close friend without other people around, or within your own home. They would not apply to, say,  something shouted across a crowded bar. 

I tried to find the reasoning behind this compared to the federal requirement of one-party consent to recording, and found only two reasons presented:

1. Protection against extortion. If consent is required from all parties, one cannot "trick" another into saying something that would harm them and record it in order to blackmail or extort them.

2. This protects private individuals from being secretly recorded by the government and then having these recordings be used against them in court.

Neither explanation makes sense to me. 

In the first case, if someone is going to extort someone else, clearly legality is not what they are concerned with. Blackmail/extortion is already a crime; whether the recording was legal or not isn't a concern. Few criminals willing to extort a person would likely think "Ho hum, I guess one crime is OK, but two is just too many!" The only possible help the law provides is a second charge added to the rap sheet if the person being extorted goes to the police.

For the second, my understanding is that the law wouldn't apply in this case unless the police were recording off-the-record and not following legal procedure. Probable cause is already required for a warrant or wiretap. If a judge has signed off on the recording it has already passed from the scope of two-party consent laws and become part of an investigation. 

Meanwhile, the arguments against two-party consent for recording seem much more pressing. An abuse victim could record his or her attacker to provide strong evidence to open an investigation or to bring to court. And people should be able to be held responsible for what they say. What better insight into the true nature of a person than a recording of what they say when they think they won't be held accountable for their words? 

Have I missed something? Are there reasons why 2-party consent recording laws should exist? Does the federally-mandated one-party consent law somehow contain perilous legal holes that I have not thought of?
_____
gpt
>Protection against extortion.

Extortion isn't the only use for embarrassing recordings. A person could spitefully release the recording without any demands.

Additionally the party committing extortion might not be the party who made the recording. If a person makes a recording of sensitive information, then (perhaps inadvertently) shares that recording with a *third* party, they could extort the first. Without 2-party consent, the second party bears no legal responsibility for this situation.