Yes, this is correct. If you make a *sound* recording in this state, all the parties present have to consent (and, I think, consent). The issue is not that a recording was made, but that it was made secretly. No such limitation exists on video recordings. [FWIW, my opinion is that a police officer interacting in his official capacity with a private citizen is *always" in public, and has no reasonable expectation of privacy. The court refused arguments based on this, saying that the law did not provide an 'in public' exception. I wonder: If you were being questioned by the police, and told them you did NOT consent to being recorded, would they then be required to stop recording?] Here's the relevant state law: [start quote] Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , ' 99 (1999): It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years. [end quote] (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ is a useful resource) Similar laws exist in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. Peter Trei

---------- From: George@Orwellian.Org[SMTP:George@Orwellian.Org] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:51 AM To: A bomb named 'Mike' Subject: Re: Slashdot | Recording Police Misconduct is Illegal

Eugene Leitl wrote: # # What we're getting (surprise, surprise) is that recording of # the public is allright but not recording *by* the public. Mann's # "shooting back" is rapidly getting outlawed.

I'm not one to make apologies for this sort of thing, and perhaps I skimmed the article too fast, but...

Isn't the ruling not specific to recording the police, but that MA has a two-party recording rule?

Everyone has the same standard of "protection".