Yes, this is correct. If you make a *sound* recording
in this state, all the parties present have to consent
(and, I think, consent). The issue is not that a
recording was made, but that it was made
secretly.
No such limitation exists on video recordings.
[FWIW, my opinion is that a police officer interacting
in his official capacity with a private citizen is *always"
in public, and has no reasonable expectation of
privacy. The court refused arguments based on this,
saying that the law did not provide an 'in public'
exception.
I wonder: If you were being questioned by the
police, and told them you did NOT consent to
being recorded, would they then be required
to stop recording?]
Here's the relevant state law:
[start quote]
Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , ' 99 (1999): It is a crime
to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without
the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The
penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000
and a jail sentence of up to five years.
[end quote]
(http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ is a useful resource)
Similar laws exist in
California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.
Peter Trei
> ----------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:51 AM
> To: A bomb named 'Mike'
> Subject: Re: Slashdot | Recording Police Misconduct is Illegal
>
> Eugene Leitl wrote:
> #
> # What we're getting (surprise, surprise) is that recording of
> # the public is allright but not recording *by* the public. Mann's
> # "shooting back" is rapidly getting outlawed.
>
> I'm not one to make apologies for this sort of thing,
> and perhaps I skimmed the article too fast, but...
>
> Isn't the ruling not specific to recording the police,
> but that MA has a two-party recording rule?
>
> Everyone has the same standard of "protection".
