“It`s not too strict as long as there are reasonable exceptions, like victims of abuse. How else can you prove it? Even if there are often witnesses, they will not come forward, the author will not admit it and the author has usually deceived everyone around him. The victim did not accept to be abused, but she will be in trouble because she did not get consent for admission?! Apart from that, there must be restrictions. The recording of the abuser, if irrelevant, should not be allowed, and no one else should violate their privacy except in extenuating circumstances such as the offender`s confession to someone else. The Flo, Saugus Michigan wiretapping law prohibits the recording of personal and telephone conversations without the consent of all parties, although one court interpreted it as requiring the consent of only one party. Violations are considered a crime and result in fines, imprisonment and civil damages. Minnesota law makes it legal to record an oral or telephone conversation with the consent of one or more parties, unless there is criminal or unlawful intent. Unauthorized recordings that violate this law may result in imprisonment, fines and/or civil liability. Arkansas It is an Arkansas offense for a person to record an oral or telephone communication in which they are not involved. Indiana It is illegal to record or intercept telephone or electronic communications without the consent of at least one party. This offence is a crime punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment and can also be held civilly liable.

Indiana`s wiretapping law does not appear to apply to face-to-face conversations. Massachusetts Under Massachusetts law, it is illegal to record oral, telephone, or wireline communications without the consent of all parties. Violations will be punishable by criminal offenses, fines, imprisonment and / or civil damages. In Massachusetts, an appeals court confirmed that if a recorded conversation is difficult to decipher but still contains audible words, such a recording could potentially be against the law. Commonwealth v. Wright, 814 N.E.2d 741 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). In addition, the consent of all parties to a recording is required, regardless of whether the conversation took place publicly or privately. Commonwealth v. Manzelli, 864 N.E.2d 566 (Mass.

App. ct. 2007). Upon notification to the president of the public institution, any person may make a video or audio recording of a public meeting of a public institution or transmit the meeting by any means, subject to the reasonable requirements of the president concerning the number, location and operation of the equipment used, so as not to interfere with the conduct of the meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, the Chairperson shall inform the other participants of these minutes. The state requires all parties to a conversation to give consent before a personal conversation can be recorded. Mass. Ann. Law`s c. 272, § 99 (c). An appeals court ruled that even if the recorded conversation is of poor audio quality, at least a few audible words are enough to violate the interception law. Massachusetts v.

Wright, 814 N.E.2d 741 (Mass. App. ct. 2004). However, the law only applies to secret recordings, so explicit consent is not required if all parties are aware of the recording. Curtatone v Barstool Sports, Inc., 169 N.E.3d 480, 483 (Mass. 2021). North Dakota The North Dakota Interception Act provides that it is legal to record verbal or telephone communications with the consent of at least one party, unless the recording is made with criminal or unlawful intent. Illegal recordings are a crime. Mississippi It is illegal to record personal or telephone conversations under Mississippi law without the consent of at least one party or with intent to commit a criminal or tortious act. Violations may result in fines, imprisonment and/or civil damages.

Hawaii Recording verbal or telephone conversations without the consent of at least one party is a crime in Hawaii and can also result in actual and punitive damages in a civil suit. “Self-preservation should be the only norm. Citizens should be able to welcome without anyone`s permission,” said Ned S. of Dorchester. The State prohibits the disclosure or use of the contents of an illegally recorded conversation if it is accompanied by knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully. General. Statutes chap. 272, § 99 (C) (3). Massachusetts` wiretapping law, which is often referred to, is a “bipartisan consent law.” Specifically, Massachusetts criminalizes the secret recording of a conversation, whether the conversation is face-to-face or by phone or other media. See Mass.

Gen. Lois chap. 272, § 99. Therefore, if you operate in Massachusetts, you should always notify all parties to a phone call or conversation you are recording, unless it is absolutely clear to all parties involved that you are recording (i.e. The recording is not “secret”). Under Massachusetts` wiretapping law, it`s up to that person to leave the conversation if one of the interviewees knows you want to record and not be recorded. General. Laws cap.

272, § 99 (C): Unlawful interception of a personal conversation or telephone call is punishable by up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Sharing or intending to profit from intercepted communications is considered an offence punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Missouri Under Missouri law, it is illegal to record a telephone conversation without the consent of either party or to record a conversation with criminal or unlawful intent. Illegal registrations are a crime punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. Violators are also subject to possible civil liability. The court may award actual and punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorneys` and litigation costs, to any person whose private communications were recorded, disclosed, or used in violation of the state`s wiretapping law.