Slashdot Mirror
"Wiretapping" Charges May Be Oddest Ever Recorded
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."
Link to source?
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.
Free Martian Whores!
~25% does not seem like an insignificant amount.
"Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1467270710/Police-say-irate-car-dealership-customer-recorded-altercation
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
... I would have included a link to the story!
Does that mean there are no video surveillance cameras in Massachusetts? Or is the owner of every single surveillance camera breaking the law?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
...for audio recording equipment. How odd.
Does anyone have a good reason for such a law, other than to protect important people (the ones who can cause laws to be written) who want to be able to deny saying something?
-Todd
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
From http://www.articlesbase.com/national,-state,-local-articles/audio-recording-laws-in-the-us-431017.html: "The 12 states which definitely require all parties to a conversation to consent before it can be recorded are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington"
Possibly the weirdest mix of red, blue, coastal, and fly-over states.
No link to source to see if he was recording or busted because he possessed one but if the latter doesn't that make anyone with an iPhone guilty of breaking that law? Since release 3.0 they all have a voice recording capability. Leave your phones at the border people!
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.
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).
Having such a recorder might be potentially important for memory impaired people on details and for the strong oral promises of con artists later denied.
3. The term âoeintercepting deviceâ means any device or apparatus which is capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying, or recording a wire or oral communication other than a hearing aid or similar device which is being used to correct subnormal hearing to normal and other than any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility, or a component thereof, (a) furnished to a subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business under its tariff and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business; or (b) being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business.
Interesting. Looks like if he'd used the record app on his iPhone, subsection 3a would have applied, and he would not have been using an intercepting device...
I guess anyone carrying a sandwich could be accused of carrying a potential murder weapon since you could suffocate someone with one.
Nuts and bolts = nuclear weapon technology
Mouldy cucumber = biowarfare device
It seems the garage got sloppy in not charging him with DMCA violation since the recorder could be used for that too.
I believe the point of these laws is to preserve a persons right to say something "anonymously".
Often referred to as "off the record".
Just as in now when I post this, I have the choice to click on the "Post Anonymously" checkbox.
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
Please, I would love to hear the logic that says that recording a conversation, which you are participant to, is unethical or immoral in any religion. That's total bullshit.
I guess typing such a conversation, verbatim, is not right too?
Can't have accountability from businesses and politicians, can we now?
As far as I know it's a common practise among police, perhaps worldwide, to try to find out who is a hothead and who isn't. 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. Those who answer the questions calmly and act in a restrained manner are usually given the benefit of the doubt in terms of who started or heightened the altercation. Those who respond to a cops questions antagonistically, and/or don't calm down, are usually seen as hotheads and tend to get the shitty end of the stick. 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.
Street sense isn't just how not to get robbed and beaten in the wrong part of town, it's also how to deal with cops when things are going bad. Street sense in today's world is as necessary to basic existence as a high school diploma, although I wouldn't suggest going onto any "higher" centres of learning.
ideopath @ play
"Fly-over states?" No, that's not a pretentious phrase.
It's not all that odd. Privacy is kind of nice.
I'd hate it if companies were constantly recording conversations without telling me. Of course, they all still record, but at least they have to tell me.
It also forces police to get a warrant instead of nicely asking someone I'm about to call to record it.
Is expectable a word? Anyway, if it's illegal to record someone without their consent, and this guy did that, why is it so strange that he was charged with it?
The problem with your reasoning is that these laws apply to everybody, and not just politicians, insiders, whistleblowers, etc.
Have a cheating spouse you want to divorce? You can't record a damning telephone call without his/her consent. It's true that such a cheater would be much more careful about when they pick up their cell phone or what they say.
Still why ban such recording? The pros strongly outweigh the cons. You can still make anonymous calls from payphones. Or use a tracphone. Or maybe the market can come with something that distorts your voice, like say a voice scrambler?
You could even use an anonymous letter.
And she was still indicted. By the democrats, even.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1467270710/Police-say-irate-car-dealership-customer-recorded-altercation
Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
When they film a blurb on-location, do they have permission from every individual who may be heard on the mike? Even those a block away? That could be hundreds of people.
Here is a state by state guide.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html
Cellphones have been classified as "instruments of crime" on arrest reports before now.
There was a case 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.
Analog tape recorders
Video cameras
Pencil and paper
Good memory
Guy kicks up a fuss at a Massachusetts car-repair shop, employees call the police, guy allegedly gives them a hard time, too [...]
Man, Click and Clack have some explaining to do...
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
In states where both parties must be aware, it has been successfully argued numerous times that if there is an automated recording prior to the conversation stating that "Calls may be recorded for training/help/nefarious/whatever purposes," it counts as due notice to both parties that the call could be recorded. The worker for the company is acting as an agent for the company on the phone, and therefore is bound by the recorded message. The caller is informed when they hear the message, and therefore both parties are aware. This is an open and shut case if the garage has such a message on the phone system, same with the police force.
so everyone that has msn chat logs enabled or other types of logs are also breaking the law? what about server logs? because transmissions between two computers can be considered a conversation
I see that Richelieu quote thrown around each time laws or restrictions are discussed, and I can't shake the feeling that the ones who use it the most have no real clue what it means.
It doesn't mean he'll make whatever is written there illegal, nor that there are so many laws that everything is illegal, nor anything of the kind.
The actual keywords there are "written by the hand of". Richelieu, see, was not above paying to forge handwritten evidence. If he wanted Person X out of the way, he'd need those 6 lines so a competent forger would write, say, a contract with the devil in the handwriting of Person X. Then Richelieu would have him waterboarded until he confesses. Then, yes, hang him like in the quote. Or maybe burn him alive, or chuck him into the dungeon for the rest of his days.
See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudun_possessions
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I have a few cellphones, the oldest being five years old and all of them are equipped with recorder functionality.
So ... can you now be arrested and charged for possessing a cellphone outside your own private home?
Is there a device that allows one to transmit the recording to a safe location in case the officer or jack-ass car repair shop members destroy your tape?
Funny enough I just read the story on CNN about the Mass sec of state releasing a taped phone call of Madoff telling colleagues how to avoid the SEC. No details there on how they got that audio tape. It'd be funny if it was illegally gathered.
Else you are a liar.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Except you too don't seem to understand what that quote really meant.
Richelieu needed those 6 lines written by the hand of a person, so he could forge evidence of some crime in the handwriting of some person.
To that end, it doesn't matter at all how many laws there actually are, and how many things are illegal. As long as there's at least one single thing that's illegal, say, murder (I think we can agree that there's no reason to make murder legal) Richelieu could still forge a letter in your writing when you say you're the one who committed some recent murder. Then you'd get tortured until you confess, and hang for it.
It's not about too many or too few laws. It's about abuse of power, really.
Yes, even he couldn't come out and say out loud "I'll forge a pact with the devil in his handwriting", hence the "I will find something" euphemism. But the process of "finding something" actually ended up being more like "hey, looky, the handwriting is exactly like this pact with the devil we just for... err.. had delivered to us by a repenting sinner who stole it from Satan's own desk drawer."
And if you think the above is just hyperbole, think again. Historically, Father Grandier (an opponent and critic of Richelieu) was waterboarded and exected for a pact with the devil, in his handwriting and signed by him in blood, which someone supposedly stole from none other than the Devil himself. Literally.
That was the kind of "finding something that will hang him" that Richelieu actually did.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Would it be legal to use a machine to lip-read and store said conversation from video only? The software exists today, and works quit well. No need to store the audio if you can lip-read it from the video.
No, you got it all wrong. What we have beef with is an establishment which allows police and the government to watch and record us at will, but we have no right to watch the police and government.
A public employee in the pursuit of his or her official duties has no reasonable expectation of nor right to privacy.
In a sane world, anyway.
- AJ
Does this mean AT&T and Verizon can be sued there?
Having such a recorder might be potentially important for memory impaired people
And I'd bet a lawyer could twist this into a suit against the state on disability discrimination grounds.
the beep is considered notification
it's valid where notification, not consent is required.
The one I never understood was the phone listings with the odd double s symbol that meant service recording equipment is in use at that number.. because ONE directory had the symbol- you don't need the beep... it was enough notification.. even if you got the phone number through other channels...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
to record each and every thing I see, feel, or hear. I avoid theaters.
Even to an old fart. That's weirder. And weirder still, to an old GAY fart. I kid you not.
says, "You have NO EXPECTATION of privacy on this property UNLESS you are a resident. All conversations are subject to audio and video recording while on the premises." I also routinely repeat back to any telephone sales callers that their calls are being recorded for humor purposes and are subject to distribution by any method I deem viable. You'd be suprised at how many sales people freak out and leave. It seems to work REALLY well with the LDS, they quail under such measures and generally refuse to even proselytize...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Just citizens? Why not when they beat-up anybody?
When a business videotapes you, they're exerting their power and extending the reach of police surveillance. The tapes can only help them, since anything that helps them will be widely distributed, while any tape that hurts them will be "lost." Since our legislatures are on the payroll, the Law loves businesses recording people.
When YOU record, you're taking power away from businesses by forcing them to honor their commitments and you provoke the police by giving them evidence against their boss that they need to act on. I know of one Sheriff's deputy in particular who brags about doubling his take-home pay by working private security while off-duty. He literally cashes a check every month from most of the larger businesses in his town, and he's looking to expand his customer base. Guess which class of people in that town are NEVER going to get arrested, no matter how many DUIs they get or how many girls they slap around?
A camera/microphone in their hands makes them powerful. The same in yours makes you slightly less vulnerable. That's why their's is a "wise and useful precaution" while yours is a "radical invasion of privacy."
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I could be wrong, but I think the beep needs to occur once every 8 seconds or so (CA).
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You know, I realize editing standards are in the toilet these days, but honestly... wtf.
You need to back it up with references. Posting something on the article comments page will sometimes help, but not nearly as well.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
So if you are arrested with an iPhone then you will automatically get tagged for possessing a wiretapping device?
Sounds like you will need to remove the Voice memo app...
But wait, its builtin.... you cannot remove the Apple apps... :-)
Could it be that this disorderly conduct charge and these types of far-fetched charges are something used by the white guys when a black/brown/yellow guy decides to stand up for himself and protest the shoddy treatment he's being subjected to??
just food for thought.
May be he has experience with the dealership lying through its teeth (many do, and esp to immigrants with a differnet accent), and wanted something to record the insulting way he's treated. Guess what? apparently you dont have the right to record things in a neutral manner.
the white dealers statement worded in proper english spoken with an american accent v/s the Mr Truong's statement in probably imperfect english and with a heavy accent... guess who the jury will believe.
You are at least partially correct.
"Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." Mich. Comp. Laws  750.539c. This looks like an "all party consent" law, but 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). The Michigan Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this question, so it is not clear whether you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to it. But, if you plan on recording a conversation to which you are not a party, you must get the consent of all parties to that conversation. In addition, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties. "
Actually, it's not the federal government's fault, it's those who have elected them, and have jumped up and down screaming "but why doesn't the federal government step in and do {education|health|internal state commerce|disaster relieve|etc}". Civics should be a mandatory class for all High School seniors and then again for all College seniors. A passing grade in should be required for graduation or for any GED.
If that is the case how in the world do they give any on the site news broadcasts? Don't some of these states have ball teams? So then shouldn't the televising (ie. audio recording of) be prohibited unless all spectators and people occupying the stadium be contacted first? just wondering that's all. I think I will put this in my dumb laws app right next to Missouri's recent one that has an age limit on texting while driving. The reason I was given was that only select ages they have problems with. So I made a suggestion that they do the same with DWI since I bet they don't pull over many 90 year olds. Police had not comment too bad for them it was live. =)
test
Captain Obvious.
One of only twelve states? That's nearly 1/4 of all states. I wouldn't call that "only".
so it means 'the opposing party to the current government shall at all times do as much as possible to astroturf and spread FUD to prevent the running government to actually achieve something. The people shall fall for it and complain loudly to said government.'
That would explain a lot (from both parties).
That's my biggest problem with the fucking cowards in the SCOTUS. They're too chicken shit to ground rights like gay marriage and abortion in the Ninth Amendment. Also, those traitorous "neo-cons" happily parrot over and over that since it's not mentioned in the constitution we have no right to privacy or anything like that... they should all be lined up against the wall and shot for sedition.
Or we could make the other assumption that most people happily agree on: That the people representing us in the government don't mean what they say, nor do they know what they are doing!
...Unless they're in with the Federal Reserve, who I welcomed as my new overlords long ago, as they seem to be the only ones who have actually gotten things done for good or evil in some time.
Fa fa fa!
You've also got a wide range of magical appreciation. ;-)
Credit to the French.