5855421
story
Comments: 439 +- Your Rights Online: "Wiretapping" Charges May Be Oddest Ever Recorded on Thursday September 10, @09:47AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px;
privacy
netbuzz writes "Guy kicks up a fuss at a Massachusetts car-repair shop, employees call the police, guy allegedly gives them a hard time, too, and they charge the fellow with a variety of expectable charges: disorderly conduct, resisting arrest ... and 'unlawful wiretapping and possessing a device for wiretapping.' The device? A digital voice recorder. Massachusetts is one of only 12 states that prohibit the recording of a conversation unless all parties to it are aware it's being recorded."
Related Stories
: by
Life exists for no known purpose.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
What, no link? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What, no link? (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
Two party consent states
Twelve states currently require that BOTH or ALL parties consent to the recording. These states are:
* California
* Connecticut
* Florida
* Illinois
* Maryland
* Massachusetts
* Michigan
* Montana
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* Pennsylvania
* Washington
If you HATE that your state is on that list, get it changed! It's a wiki, you can change it yourself! :-)
Parent
You're wrong Shakrai. (Score:5, Interesting)
And she was still indicted [wikipedia.org]. By the democrats, even.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does a Federal special prosecutor give immunity against State charges? I assume you are familiar with the 10th amendment and the concept of separation of powers?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How does a Federal special prosecutor give immunity against State charges? I assume you are familiar with the 10th amendment and the concept of separation of powers?
Your beef is with Wikipedia. Better go fix it.
A What Out of U and ME? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a safe assumption. One of the few things all three branches of the federal government happily agree on: the 9th and 10th Amendments do not mean what they say. See also: the nationalized health-care debate.
Parent
Re:What, no link? (Score:5, Informative)
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington
"Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WRONG. Michigan requires only ONE party to know it's being taped. It's how my recordings of my ex wife were admissible in court.
Lie to me! (Score:5, Interesting)
Illinois is one of theose twelve states. I refer to it as the "liar's law". There is no other reason I can't record a conversation in a public place except that the politicians don't want their lies revealed.
Well, maybe there are other secrets they want kept that aren't lies -- like their extramarital affairs. These 12 states, including mine, must have some incredibly immoral and hypocritical legislators.
However, I'll bet that the wiretapping charge doesn't stick. These days the cops make all sorts of spurious charges and the DA plea bargains the charges down. I'll bet he pays a few huundred bucks fine for a misdemeanor.
Oh wait, strike that -- gambling is iolegal here, too.
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I'll bet that the wiretapping charge doesn't stick. These days the cops make all sorts of spurious charges and the DA plea bargains the charges down. I'll bet he pays a few huundred bucks fine for a misdemeanor.
This is true, however, this is also the reason you don't piss off cops. Don't let them violate your rights, sure, but don't be a jerk. They will instantly acquire an almost da Vinci-like creativity for inventing reasons you've broken the law. It's not worth the hassle.
Re:Lie to me! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true, however, this is also the reason you don't piss off cops. Don't let them violate your rights, sure, but don't be a jerk. They will instantly acquire an almost da Vinci-like creativity for inventing reasons you've broken the law.
They don't need to "invent" anything. Why do you think all jurisdictions have those "catch-all" laws on the books, like "disorderly conduct" or "creating a disturbance" or "being a public nuisance." These laws are deliberately vague so that if you act like a dick when the cop stops you, he's got plenty of leeway to charge you with something.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it interesting that a website filled with people who are normally outraged at the idea of video surveillance in a public place with everyone's knowledge is so accepting of the idea of audio surveillance in a public place without everyone's knowledge.
Personally, I'm on the fence on this. I don't like the idea of people recording me (audio or video) without my knowledge or consent, because as a general rule I don't trust people. However, I'm not sure I want a law to prevent it.
Re:Lie to me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us don't care about private people recording people in public. I see people with video cameras and such all the time.
What we don't appreciate is someone with armed forces and the "Law" at their disposal doing the same thing.
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think your missing the point. The real officer wouldn't have cited him in the first place. The electronic cop makes him go to court to contest a witness that he can't even confront, and your answer is to gather enough money up to sue the city for harassment from an electronics policeman who you still can not confront.
Yea, he has options, more so if he was rich. Right and wrong are often obvious yet they do not apply evenly to everyone. This unevenness gets more skewed the further apart the income scale goes.
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Interesting)
I can magically avoid detection on an audio tape by keeping my damn mouth shut.
I can't yet magically avoid detection on a video tape by turning invisible. And no, wearing a ski mask to avoid recognition isn't a reasonable alternative.
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, it's illegal to cover your face for the purpose of disguising or hiding your identity in many places.
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how much trouble I'd get into if I put on a ski mask, in the middle of summer, and walked into my local bank, walked up to the ATM, put in my own card, took out some cash, and walked out. Would I even get back to the door, or would the police already be there to arrest me while I was trying to take out the cash?
Maybe if I were independently wealthy and had time on my hands to take the police down a notch or two I'd try something like this. In the meantime, though, I don't think I can afford the lunacy of fighting the cops.
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a motorcyclist. I wear a helmet on my way to the bank, and for the colder half of the year, I wear a ski mask underneath that.
Banks are pretty touchy about masks. I've never tried to wear one into the bank, but they've actually stopped me from putting on my helmet on the way out, even after they had my face on camera.
I find that it tends to make (mall) security officers a little tense as well.
Interestingly, people tend to be more nervous about the mask than the helmet. I installed a nose guard which effectively covers the ski mask - you can't easily tell I'm wearing one by looking through the visor. People seem a little more relaxed.
All the banks I go to have ATMs on the outside. I never take my helmet off when I use them, and I've never had any trouble because of it.
I strongly suspect that if you walked into a bank wearing a ski mask for no obvious reason, an officer would be called by the time you got to the teller, and you'd be arrested on your way out.
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:5, Interesting)
Usually such a law is supported by the argument that an undercover police officer can't record what you say without you knowing about it.
I'm with you: I can see the ability to make such recordings being a great safety tool in some circumstances, but I can also see great potential for abuse.
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:5, Informative)
These days the cops make all sorts of spurious charges and the DA plea bargains the charges down. I'll bet he pays a few huundred bucks fine for a misdemeanor.
That's not a real improvement. Even a misdemeanor record will hurt your employment viability/ability to get a security clearance/ability to get a concealed carry permit (in some states)/ability to get professional licenses/etc/etc.
When I got charged with felonies I didn't commit they offered me a plea bargain down to a misdemeanor. I told them to go to hell (actually my lawyer did but that's another matter) and fought it all the way to the Grand Jury that refused to indict me. Cost me a lot more money but at least I came out of it without a criminal record.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's the problem... It costs the state nothing to pile as many charges as they please on you, but it costs a SHITLOAD to fight them.
Maybe it's time to make the state pay for your defense when you're aquitted? If they have one valid charge, and pile on 9 other bogus ones to see if they stick, they pay 90% of your defense bill if you're aquitted of 9/10 of them.
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's time to make the state pay for your defense when you're aquitted?
Great idea, one that I'd like to see, but the law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head. If the state, i.e. taxpayers, have to pay for state mistakes, Judges and Juries will be even less likely to acquit. Would you rather have a few more innocent people go to jail, so that some people will be compensated for being wrongly accused?
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, you should never plea guilty to something you didn't commit.
Parent
Re:Lie to me! (Score:4, Interesting)
There are times when the evidence points to you when you ARE innocent. It doesn't matter whether or not you're guilty, it matters that the state can prove your guilt, whether or not you're guilty.
In times like that I'm sure you won't hate lawyers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh...huh? That's the ONLY reason you can think of? Absolutely nothing to do with privacy?
Direct link to the story (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1467270710/Police-say-irate-car-dealership-customer-recorded-altercation [metrowestdailynews.com]
Video Surveillance Cameras? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does that mean there are no video surveillance cameras in Massachusetts? Or is the owner of every single surveillance camera breaking the law?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Video Surveillance Cameras? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
weird mix (Score:5, Informative)
Possibly the weirdest mix of red, blue, coastal, and fly-over states.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"...one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. See Sullivan v. Gray, 342 N.W. 2d 58, 60-61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). "
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law [citmedialaw.org]
(Yet to be tested by the Michigan Supreme Court)
Wiretapping? (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't Wiretapping require you to use the recording device to record data traveling through wires?
If I carry an old Casette Deck around with me and Record everything on a bus ride - is that considered Wire Tapping?
They need to at least rename the law because I would have thought recording a conversation albeit discreetly would not be considered wire-tapping.
Re:Wiretapping? (Score:4, Informative)
The term interception means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication; provided that it shall not constitute an interception for an investigative or law enforcement officer, as defined in this section, to record or transmit a wire or oral communication if the officer is a party to such communication or has been given prior authorization to record or transmit the communication by such a party and if recorded or transmitted in the course of an investigation of a designated offense as defined herein."
Parent
!wiretap (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't the legal system use common sense. Simply recording something is not the same as a wiretap. A wiretap implies access to conversations through some sort of technological loophole or exploit and is usually long term. If this is to be illegal then the law should refer to unlawful recording without consent.
IMHO, it doesn't make sense that it can be illegal to record a conversation that you are part of since you have been explicitly granted access to the information (the guy is F@#$ing talking to you).
Re:!wiretap (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's controlled by lawyers, politicians, and the wealthy. Common sense, from a common citizen's perspective, will never be an emergent property from such a system.
Parent
Re:!wiretap (Score:5, Informative)
The law never uses the term wiretap: Interception of wire and oral communications [mass.gov]. Lawmakers can hardly be held responsible for the logical consequences of what other people choose to call things after the fact.
Parent
Re:!wiretap (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't the legal system use common sense. Simply recording something is not the same as a wiretap. A wiretap implies access to conversations through some sort of technological loophole or exploit and is usually long term. If this is to be illegal then the law should refer to unlawful recording without consent.
The law in question is Chapter 272: Section 99. "Interception of wire and oral communications".
So, yeah, the legal system doesn't always use common sense, but this isn't a great example for you.
Also, you propose "unlawful recording without consent" - that's not right either. Massachusetts doesn't require consent to be recorded, just knowledge. So I can say to you "I'm recording this conversation," and you can say, "no, I don't consent, turn off the recorder," and it's irrelevant. I can keep recording and I can use the recording in any way I see fit. Your consent is immaterial.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I can say to you "I'm recording this conversation," and you can say, "no, I don't consent, turn off the recorder," and it's irrelevant. I can keep recording and I can use the recording in any way I see fit. Your consent is immaterial.
If I inform you that I am recording your speech, and you choose to keep talking, then you have consented.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Odious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Odious (Score:4, Funny)
.... and for the strong oral promises of con artists later denied.
You mean, like...politicians?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if they don't like it, they can fucking leave. You don't need consent in any state, it's just in some that you have to inform them.
They want you to turn it off, you can tell them to get bent and keep recording.
Mass supreme court wiretapping case (Score:3, Informative)
There was a case [ajr.org] before the Mass Supreme Judicial Court about 10 years ago where a motorist was stopped by the police. The motorist felt he was being singled-out unfairly so he secretly audio recorded the encounters. A few days later he went to the police station to file a formal complaint against the officers and submitted his recording as evidence. He wound up being arrested, charged and found responsible for violating the wiretap statute. The defendant appealed the decision up to the SJC and lost there.
I've always been torn up a little about the wiretap statute. I think it's not totally unreasonable to have some measure of protection in citizen-to-citizen interactions, especially in this age of Youtube. However I've always felt there should be an exception to this rule for recording municipal and state employees (including police) acting in their official capacity.
FWIW, there was an attempt to change the law to make an exception for recording police officers but (as one might expect) opposition from police unions killed it.
Re:A concealed carry law... (Score:5, Funny)
I could tell you, but you'd have to stop recording this conversation.
Parent
Re:A concealed carry law... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
Parent
Re:A concealed carry law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"only 12 states" (Score:5, Funny)
12/50 = 24/100
Doesn't sound like exactly 20% to me. Closer to exactly 24% (or ~25%)
Am I missing something?
Canada? Western Europe? Iraq?
Parent
Re:Street Cred (Score:4, Insightful)
When a cop is called to a dispute or fight, not always but often, s/he will ask each participant a few pointed, even brusque questions. [...] If you're stupid enough to react to a cop aggressively rather than addressing any wrongs later through the courts or a police complaints board then you're likely gonna get charges laid against you that otherwise might be let go.
Yes, but this is the point - you will always be less credible than a cop before a court, if word stands against word. So if they prohibit your recording of all the insults the cop hurled at you (just because he can), you have no realistic chance of redress later through the courts (whether you became aggressive or not).
Parent