Should recording the voices of unconsenting people be legal?

Recording peoples' voices without their consent is legal in some regions of the world such as Texas (also referred to as "one-party consent states"), while being illegal in others such as California (also referred to as "two-party consent states"). This wikidebate explores the reasons for and against the legality of recording peoples' voices without their consent.

Recording peoples' voices without their consent should be legal

Arguments for

• ⟬⟬⟭: Voice recordings can provide valuable evidence of bullying, threats, and other bad behaviour, because voice recordings are a stronger confirmation that someone said something than a testimony.
  • ⟬⟬⟭: In the age of artificial intelligence, there is a likelihood that a voice recording was faked using AI.
• ⟬⟬⟭: Voice recordings make it possible to replay parts of a conversation that were not clearly understood by the listener in the moment, to clear up misunderstandings.
• ⟬⟬⟭: Voice recordings can preserve life memories with beloved friends and family. This is especially true for memories with people who are terminally ill. Since they probably won't live for long, their consent shouldn't be necessary.

Arguments against

• ⟬⟬⟭: People might discuss sensitive topics such as their health and intimate life which they do not wish others to hear besides the person they are speaking to. A voice recording would let someone play it back to other people.
  • ⟬⟬⟭: If someone does not trust someone else with keeping something secret, one should not disclose it in the first place.