My objection is not that it's difficult to record every conversation that I have over the internet. My objection is that it's creepy and overbearing.
That's the key distinction between the laws that we already have - about what you can't say - and this proposal - which governs what you must say. It's easy to prove that I said something; it's almost impossible to prove that I did not. The law would be unenforceable, unless you're suggesting that we move to a standard of presumed guilt.
Again, what evidence do we have that this is even a problem?
Quite frankly, these are my issues in a nutshell.
1. It seems remarkably obsessive and indeed overbearing for a voluntary activity. As I said, I don't keep records of what I say and to whom... I don't intend to start now. I think outside of a few, it would not be the norm.
2. The amendment is loaded with subjectivity both in language and implied actions that I can't see a universal application of this law and would require both a standard of evidence and a degree of interpretation that seems highly problematic.
AG - FTR, yes, I do understand why some retain chat logs. But just for s***s and giggles? That's flat out scary.
