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."
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!
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 : )
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.
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
And she was still indicted. By the democrats, even.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
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).
Agreed. It does seem strange to consider recording your own conversation with someone as a 'secret interception'.
Doesn't everyone involved implicitly have a right to record (ie remember) any information discussed?
If I inform you that I am recording your speech, and you choose to keep talking, then you have consented.
No, you can expressly refuse consent. But it's irrelevant in this case, because your consent was never required. Merely your knowledge.
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.