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."
If you HATE that your state is on that list, get it changed!
Or just ignore the law and get away with doing so because your violation of the law provided convenient political ammo for somebody. Linda Tripp was never prosecuted for recording her phone calls with Monica Lewinsky, even though she made those recordings without her knowledge in a two party (Maryland) state.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I am sure almost nobody and certainly not all will have given consent.
What kind of retarded are you?
My post:
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.
You:
"Duh, I can sue anyone who doesn't give consent!"
I know Slashdotters don't read the articles, but most of us read the comment we're replying to.
>>>Tell that to the fucking cameras that always get me a ticket for making a LEGAL RIGHT HAND TURN AT A RED LIGHT.
I don't believe this story.
Most cameras (or their operators) are intelligent enough to know the difference between an illegal move and a legal right turn. And even if were true, by this point you could sue the city for harassment, because you keep getting ticketed for doing nothing wrong. The AAA won a similar case in Washington D.C. (the lights were too short). The cameras are still there but the problem fixed.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Great, more anecdotal evidence. Exactly what I was looking for.
See judge, I know this guy online.. well not "know", but I was talking to him. Well not "talking", and it might have not been a guy, but we were communicating. And this person said that this happens all the time, and that if I don't believe that then I'm calling cops liars. I rest my case.
Call them liars and let's see what happens.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly are you expecting to happen if I claim that cops in Michigan lie? Are the Michigan cops and their internet tough guy friends going to come and get me?
It's no more difficult for me to look up Michigan law than it is for you to look it up, I'm trying to make a point that instead of just asserting what a law is, it really helps your cred if you can back up your claim (with the actual law I mean, not stories about what you saw or heard from someone else).
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black