Isn't the ruling not specific to recording the police, but that MA has a two-party recording rule?
Correct. You might find it interesting that a number of states are considering (or revisiting) visual recording statutes. One form has a privacy expectation and exceptions for prisons, security and "law enforcement engaged in investigation." Some include public CCTV notice requirements and privacy expectations defined by location. TX HB 1040 @ http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/billsrch/subject/77r/S2361.HTM Others are closer to this Arizona bill, addressing visual surveillance in public places. This is a bare statute with no mention of a privacy interest. It exempts "professional journalists," seemingly defined so as to exclude independent journalists. Bills like this could be construed to restrain the use of visual surveillance at protests, and in other situations that involve disparate bargaining power and government overreaching. AZ HB 2470 @ http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/45leg/1r/bills/hb2470p.pdf Critics of contemporary surveillance law point out that we increasingly live in a world where THEY can spy on you, but you can't spy on THEM. Governments, business and employers are like bad parents that say, "*I* can do it -- but you can't." Children learn quickly.... ~Aimee