It is one thing to communicate or ask permission and another is to do without the interlocutor may not even be aware. I’ve been in meetings where There was a lighter or a suspect laptop, in offices of senior managers with a tape recorder on the table or a Cabinet, in formal and informal job interviews where put me a mobile phone near or in the Middle, etc. I have seen long and endless meetings of assemblies, boards of Directors, Executive Committees, etc. where the sessions have been recorded. Not only does not affect me but that, in some cases, I justified them, provided that previously communicated to attendees or participants the technical resource that will be used. Since long ago I follow Covey Council; I admit that I swim in economic abundance, have not lost some friends, even though I’ve won other, sleep very well and I can look in the face to all entrepreneurs, senior managers, teams, peers and other collaborators with which I have had the opportunity to work with that attitude.
It is sad to know that someone to whom you want to use arts with which you do not comulgas but, in any case, is their problem, not the yours, friend. Richard Blumenthal may not feel the same. Pointing Chusca Gonzalez to the citizen who converses with another must assume the risk of being recorded by peer: is a problem of each the choice of what you say and who you say it. The law guarantees the secrecy of communications exclusively against interference by the State and the interference of third parties, but is not secret what one accepts speak, write or communicate with another. In this sense there is no doubt the legality of recording by one of the partners. Cheer, friend, party where you militas and, above all, the society needs people like you. Take care.