One of the parties involved in a call recording it is not surveillance. It's comparable to having chat logs for text messaging. Contrary to what you've claimed, vast majority of US states have one party consent for call recording. GrapheneOS Foundation is based in Canada where one party consent is the law.
Our feature is designed for people to comply with the law in jurisdictions requiring two party consent. It shows a notice for every inbound and outbound call where call recording will be enabled. It also has a per-contact toggle for enabling it instead of simply being either enabled or disabled. We also plan to offer the option to have it automatically disclose the call is being recorded.
[flagged]
You've made multiple comments disparaging GrapheneOS because of two minor features it provides. Both features are fully legal for GrapheneOS to include. Both are legal to use as long as people follow applicable laws. Both our regular call recording and automatic call recording features display a prominent warning to users about following call recording consent laws. Proceeding requires accepting the dialog acknowledging the warning. Our implementation discourages people from violating laws and is fully legal itself.
There are other ways to record calls such as enabling speaker mode and using another device to record the audio. It's similar to apps trying to prevent users from taking screenshots. It fundamentally doesn't work.
[flagged]
This is trolling and it's appropriate for it to be flagged:
> But I guess most of the low-hanging fruit has been solved by the mainstream OS, so a new OS has to take all of the dirty work no one else would touch in order to be relevant. Godspeed
Here's a statement which was made earlier and wasn't necessarily trolling:
> I also find it quite poetic that GrapheneOS seems to be against surveillance, yet they are for it, when it's in their favour of course.
However, it was confirmed to be in their follow up reply:
> > One of the parties involved in a call recording it is not surveillance
> I do agree in principle, and would even argue for it. But in many states it's just not what the law is.
Here's our response to what you've pasted in response to multiple of our replies:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49599645
[flagged]
Here's our response to what you've pasted in response to multiple of our replies:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49599645