If you don’t plan on following the rule, you don’t need a recording device.
Rules like this are an agreement among friends or attendants at an even. If you go in to such an event with an awareness of the rules but an intent to go against them, that’s bad faith. If you go in to such an event with an intent to secretly record people and release recordings of them that’s just terrible behavior, regardless of what the law says.
This was a response to Chatham House Rule becoming widespread at public-at-large community events.
Inviting the public and then putting them under a gag order isn't something we should be excited about. It feels like a slide into censorship.
If you want to publish ideas with anonymity, there are forums for that: social media, journalists with anonymous sources, anonymous editorial pieces, to name just a few. Some of these channels even let you lean on titles or authority, eg. "editorial by an anonymous tech CEO".
Chatham House Rule doesn't really work in practice, and it's a bizarre new social construct that stands in the way of fostering an open society.
We shouldn't be ashamed of free speech. Rather than bending over backwards to create artificial safe spaces where we can say controversial things, we should normalize speaking plainly and openly with one another. This is a weird retreat and it makes society more reclusive and less open. It handicaps us and makes us less authentic.
Rules like this are an agreement among friends or attendants at an even. If you go in to such an event with an awareness of the rules but an intent to go against them, that’s bad faith. If you go in to such an event with an intent to secretly record people and release recordings of them that’s just terrible behavior, regardless of what the law says.