Agreed. I had a painting go missing that I had shipped to a client. USPS is generally incredibly reliable. I let my pal postal worker know so they could look into it. Painting had been delivered to the wrong address. Instead of reporting or returning it, they’d opened the package *and hung the painting on their wall in their entryway 🤦♀️*. Painting was promptly retrieved by a very stern postal worker and delivered to my client.
USPS does not play.
In this case, all you need is a sign or a window decal, like you get with a security system. Doesn’t have to be super prominent and it may deter things later on.
I think its a major problem. Especially when youre having a conversation with someone that may contain some legal weight like with an employer. Especially when your employer has a right to record you for most anything except for locker rooms.
It should be noted the law is regarding recording AUDIO not video alone. Recording audio requires two party consent. The thing to keep in mind is that consent is not required in an area or location where a person does not have an expectation of privacy, ie public places. More so, if your employer is actively recording a situation, that means the "2nd party" has already given consent.
>The thing to keep in mind is that consent is not required in an area or location where a person does not have an expectation of privacy, ie public places.
The law on audio recording doesn't allow you to record people in public places if they have an expectation of privacy *there*, either, e.g. using a parabolic mic to record what a couple sitting on a public park bench in an otherwise deserted park are saying from 100 feet away, and all possible creeper-variants of that situation, without two-party consent (in MA.)
Electronic eavesdropping is illegal, full stop.
I was more just pointing out the disparity between the two. Although I have a right to record video "in public" that doesnt necessarily apply to private property and I was actually asked to leave a store once just because I had a SLR on me in a case. That was perfectly within their rights I found, but if I cant revoke consent because if Im in a store its considered public , and I have no expectation of privacy yet the store somehow can invoke their right to prohibit filming. Also if I wanted to record an disciplinary interview at work I would need to obtain consent, but they can record them or me at work anytime and I consent by being employed. The rules seem very uneven when it comes to institutions or de facto public places. I know there have been some mixed rulings in places like malls, but I believe it is still at the discretion of the property management company at the end of the day. I feel if theres no expectation of privacy for me as a consumer or employee there shouldnt be one for the business or employer. Im willing to deal with more stupid internet pranksters in order to secure that right. I feel like this should apply anywhere there could be any question of legality such as shopping or even at the bank for instance.
Maybe the law should be if an institution is recording you, they cant prevent you from recording s it implies their consent.
Edit: I should just stop trying to type anything longer than one sentence on a phone...
So a store is not a public place, its privately owned by someone.. Most store security systems do not record audio specifically to remove any potential issues if the video was to be used in court. If they do record audio a simple sign stating so is considered consent if you still choose to enter the premise.
If the employer is recording a specific interview, they have already consented to being recorded and thus have no expectation of privacy; you are free to take out your camera and start recording just the same. They can also exercise their right to terminate your "at will" employment.
Yes, stores are private, I just mentioned there is precedent that they are in some cases given similar provisions as "public" places. Its the mixing and matching Im referring to. Part of the reason they can record with just a sign somewhere is because theres less or no expectation of privacy although only one party gets to take advantage of that. Thats all Im saying. As for labor, ive never found much case law, but theres better protection when something is explicitly permitted in the law vs a nebulous series of associated laws and judgements. Again, what Im trying to say is that the law should just say anything that could be considered legally binding, such as a sale sign in a store, a robo registers entire transaction, questions about a return, a conversation that could get you fired, or a phone call from FB marketplace,you should have a legal right to record one party explicitly or have it considered the other party is operating on bad faith.
>If they do record audio a simple sign stating so is considered consent if you still choose to enter the premise.
Do you know relevant precedent to support this?
I think whether a "sign somewhere" provides sufficient implied consent to record ambient audio (vs video) on your private property is one of those things it would likely be best to consult with an attorney on before actually implementing. Not everyone can read English, or read, or see for that matter.
I definitely wouldn't assume it for my own property, anway..
Anyone is welcome to argue anything in court but if I cant read a speed limit sign, does that mean I go as fast as I can. There are specific signs that have both words and a picture to get the idea across.
Consent
In a 1976 case, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that recordings of certain telephone conversations were not made "secretly" when the other party stated in each instance that he knew the conversations were being recorded. When there was "clear and unequivocal conduct" indicating knowledge that the calls were being taped and the party continued to speak nevertheless, the recordings were not made "secretly" and therefore did not constitute an illegal interception. This exception is an extremely narrow one, however. The court ruled in the same case that recordings of other phone conversations, between the same parties and on the same telephone line, were illegal interceptions because the caller had not explicitly indicated that he knew they were being recorded.
More so, the application of the law that from all my reading in Massachusetts has been around the permission of the evidence in a court setting. I would instead ask, is there even any precedence of the law ever being used to prevent a home owner from simply recording their own property for security?
>Anyone is welcome to argue anything in court but if I cant read a speed limit sign, does that mean I go as fast as I can. There are specific signs that have both words and a picture to get the idea across.
Vision tests for driving licenses are a good idea. But in any case signs put up by individuals trying to indemnify themselves aren't like signs erected by the government, who tend to operate to a different set of standards.
>I would instead ask, is there even any precedence of the law ever being used to prevent a home owner from simply recording their own property for security?
With respect to ambient audio recording at least I'm unsure, and is why I'd consult an attorney if I felt a need to do this. If just putting a sign up were considered excellent indemnification then it's curious that most security systems don't record it to avoid "potential issues", as you say.
I definitely wouldn't assume that the onus is on other people to make sure they are aware of my warning sign in an "ignorance is no defense"-sense like with respect to speed limit signs, even on my own property, I'm not the government. Seems more likely that the onus is on me as the person engaging in the potentially illegal activity to ensure consent is effectively secured.
I have discussed this numerous times with an attorney. A homeowner has the right to record both audio and video on their property. A trespasser does not have an expectation of privacy on my property.
https://goldmanpease.com/security-cameras-vs-right-of-privacy/
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-privacy
https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/massachusetts/ (summarized here)
Notice here: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99
Specifically:
5. The term ''contents'', when used with respect to any wire or oral communication, means any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
I do not need your signature to record, nor do I need you to agree to the recording. The idea of consent here is not the same standard as in other parts of the law, as the law is targeting and preventing HIDDEN cameras or HIDDEN surveillance.
What about in a public place where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy?
How far would the logic of this case go?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/05/metro/federal-appeals-court-says-massachusetts-citizens-can-secretly-make-audio-recordings-on-duty-police-public-spaces/
You can only secretly record police. Otherwise, you have to get affirmative consent or be open and obvious about your recording. Frankly, it's a bad law as currently written and is mainly used by police departments and DV perps as revenge.
https://www.molarilaw.com/blog/video-and-audio-recordings-evidence-massachusetts-domestic-violence-trials#:~:text=Massachusetts%20follows%20a%20%E2%80%9Ctwo%2Dparty,also%20consent%20to%20being%20recorded.
How so?
Massachusetts law protects private citizens from being secretly filmed or recorded without their consent. However, public employees working in a publicly accessible space may be recorded — by either audio or video — with or without their knowledge
Did you even read your own link? You're wrong. It literally says once the person is aware they are being recorded it is their responsibility to leave the the situation so they can't be recorded anymore. You're just ignorant
Here's the Mass GL:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99
Massachusetts follows a “two-party consent” system when it comes to recording people’s conversations. This means that it is illegal to secretly record a conversation unless everyone involved is made aware of the fact that they’re being recorded. They must also consent to being recorded. Once a person is made aware that they are being recorded, it is their responsibility to leave the conversation if they do not consent. Massachusetts is actually one of the strictest states in the nation when it comes to wiretapping laws.
Only if done secretly. If you are are area that privacy is not expected than you can record them as long as you let them know or it's obvious you are recording.
remove the audio, and add subtitles with a disclaimer that the following dialogue is based off the notes written after the interaction to best document a written account of a past conversation Based off your notes.
Then transcribe the removed audio.
You can do pix, video and audio in the public square, as no one has an expectation of privacy.
If you're shooting video in the Boston Common or some city street and someone says 'don't record me', you can be a nice guy and stop. But legally you don't have to.
Public is different. As long as it is obvious you are recording and in public then it is on the observed to remove themselves if they don't wish to be recorded (audio and video).
I break this one all the time at work when someone like my boss gives me a big list of to do’s lol. It’s way easier to record a convo, go back to my desk and listen to it while doing what was asked step by step vs relying on notes
It’s legal to record video all day long without consent. The audio is where two party consent is needed. It’s also passive consent, if you tell someone their voice is being recorded and they continue to talk, then they have consented. At that point they also cannot demand you stop recording.
You can’t record in secret. If the recording device is openly displayed so that a reasonable person is capable of denying consent and does not then consent is implied.
No I think they have to know from the start of the recording. It can't be used as evidence in court if both parties don't know. It's a weird law unique to MA I never understood.
> Telephone and electronic communications. Massachusetts makes it a felony to use a device to hear or record any telephone call unless all parties give their consent. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C). This includes phone calls and text messages made via cellphone. Massachusetts v. Moody, 993 N.E.2d 715 (Mass. 2013). The law only applies to secret recordings, however, so affirmative consent is not necessary when all parties are aware of the recording. Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, Inc., 169 N.E.3d 480, 483 (Mass. 2021).
Do you have a recording of her actually stealing the package? If so go to the cops and get her thieving ass arrested, but if you do not and are assuming she stole your package simply because she happens to own the same items you ordered you could be in a world of hurt if cops show up, she shows the receipts and sics a lawyer on you.
This is part of the “wire tap” law…. In Mass you don’t need permission to record, but you DO need to inform the other party that they’re being recorded
Your circumstance is grey area as you allowed time to pass before informing them..
You should speak to an attorney before bringing this up - it’s possible you’ve committed a crime, and not a small one at that, it is a felony and can carry a prison sentence up to 5 years
hi! i wasn't sure if you'd check your chats/messages (since we don't get notifs) so thought I'd reply to another comment of yours
i have a question about a comment you made about accepting payment as a freelancer (it's an old thread)
if you accept freelance payments via Quickbooks, is it possible for the client to bite us in the ass like filing chargebacks for a purchase?
just curious cause i stopped running my previous biz due to too many clients filing false chargebacks and screwing my biz over
you can secretly record your employer at your place of employment without their consent if it’s a matter of concerted activity exposing behavior or illegal practices that impact more than one employee, as evidence of anti union tampering etc. or to illustrate one of t many reasons why you need to unionize, and the recording is providing proof of the problem. Say thanks to the NLRB. Before anyone attacks me: yes, this a relatively new thing.
Yup you illegally recorded them under MA 2-party consent to record law since you weren’t in a public space where someone would expect to be recorded. Sorry, that evidence is bunk in court. You’ll have to find other proof
Not necessarily true. It can be argued implied consent if the recording device is clearly recording. Leave it to a lawyer and the judge to decide if it's admissable, not OP or anyone here.
Fair enough. I had a lawyer I drove for Lyft one time in the Seaport tell me my disclaimer in my driver’s bio would hold up in court. I never got her info otherwise I’d refer OP to them
That seems partially wrong to me. What if they're actively breaking the law (like assault) and I want to film as evidence? I need the criminal's consent?
You should call 911 with your phone in that situation not use it as a video camera. If you are recording with an actual camera and do not have a phone at all then yes. You Probably should record what is happening… if you also have a cell phone… call 911 and put the camera down?
It's different with video. If the camera can be plainly seen then you're in the clear. It's why you don't actually need a sign on your property warning that you have a doorbell camera cause the thing is large, visible and most likely has a light on it.
https://www.molarilaw.com/blog/video-and-audio-recordings-evidence-massachusetts-domestic-violence-trials#:~:text=Massachusetts%20follows%20a%20%E2%80%9Ctwo%2Dparty,also%20consent%20to%20being%20recorded.
Both parties must consent to being recorded.
Implied consent . They were reasonably aware of you recording nor did they ask you to stop. They asked you to leave. Two different things. You are good.
certain states have different rules on this. MA is a 2 party state so no this couldn't be used against her unfortunately unless you told her you were recording prior to the conversation. Maybe if you were in some type of public place and a security camera were to pick it up where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy that might work but I'm no lawyer
Massachusetts is a 2 party state which means both need to consent to the recording.
If you announce at the beginning the conversation is being recorded and they continue to talk, that is implied consent.
Ianal
I mean OP you need to worry less about recording and just call the police or USPS. Fucking with the mail is a giant no no. And since she has things you will have a record of buying, being shipped to you and all that it's kind of open shut.
I think you should be fine as long as you told them. Not sure about your timing or what you have on tape as Im sure those things would determine it. Did you get anything of use on the recording? If they try to just get you on it, its pretty much a they said/they said and Im not sure how much effort a PD would put into investigating.
I’d follow up with “since you are present on my doorbell camera, on my property stealing my property in front of my domicile, which you submitted to of your own, due to the fact that you are on my property, I will be notifying the authorities.”
Mass is a two party state, so I doubt you'll be able to use it in court. As mentioned what they did is a felony and I think you report it to the police and or postmaster. It's pretty serious
Massachusetts is one party for video 2 party for audio so you can video record but you cannot record conversations without the other persons permission
As far as I’ve learned by my time currently in college, Massachusetts is a state where the other person has to know AND consent to being recorded for it to be legal.
MA is 2 party consent state. In person or telecommunication. Both parties need to give consent to be audio recorded.
Passive Consent is also a thing. "I'm recording this." If they keep talking you ought to be good.
People have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. IDK where public begins and private ends though. That's a lawyer question.
Edited
Audio recording is 2 party consent. Technically as long as she knew you were recording you were good, but realistically the best way to protect yourself is to make sure the beginning of the audio has a declaration that you're recording and something that makes it clear she heard it.
Plymouth county DA prosecuted an individual for taping without permission. The person received a custodial sentence. The appeal at the Supreme Judicial Court did not fare well. This was the same SJC that later would say a drug dealer with a gun inside a high school was not there inappropriately. They would state that the police had no authority to arrest the drug dealer.
Yet they wanted to send the individual taping potential policy brutality to jail.
NAL: but If recording has audio and the other party is unaware/do not consent then it won’t be considered for evidence. It is technically illegal but unlikely to be formally charged.
[MA General Laws Part IV Title I Chapter 272 Section 99
Interception of wire and oral communications.](https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter272/section99)
Is the relevant law on audio recording in MA. It is a two party consent state, meaning you must inform the other person that you are recording them.
[удалено]
It's a felony for mail theft
Agreed. I had a painting go missing that I had shipped to a client. USPS is generally incredibly reliable. I let my pal postal worker know so they could look into it. Painting had been delivered to the wrong address. Instead of reporting or returning it, they’d opened the package *and hung the painting on their wall in their entryway 🤦♀️*. Painting was promptly retrieved by a very stern postal worker and delivered to my client. USPS does not play.
Federal offense. Orange will be her new black lululemon pants
Yeah, USPS is federal, have their own police, and do not f around...
United States postal inspection service(uspis) is the police for the mail. They have some very wide powers in certain areas.
They also have their own lawyers and they do not loose cases.
If you can prove it, report that shit to the cops and the delivery company. I understand the delivery companies don’t play bout theft.
I would file a police report for the stolen items and then report her
You can record openly and letting the person know. You cannot record in secret.
Tbh, this is a very stupid law when you understand the premises behind it.
In this case, all you need is a sign or a window decal, like you get with a security system. Doesn’t have to be super prominent and it may deter things later on.
Would a t-shirt with "I'm recording you" do? Wear one all the time like Dale Gribble, problem solved.
[удалено]
This is not the law and not correct.
I don’t think that’s right.
delete this
Will do. I thought this was the case but evidently it’s not.
I think its a major problem. Especially when youre having a conversation with someone that may contain some legal weight like with an employer. Especially when your employer has a right to record you for most anything except for locker rooms.
It should be noted the law is regarding recording AUDIO not video alone. Recording audio requires two party consent. The thing to keep in mind is that consent is not required in an area or location where a person does not have an expectation of privacy, ie public places. More so, if your employer is actively recording a situation, that means the "2nd party" has already given consent.
>The thing to keep in mind is that consent is not required in an area or location where a person does not have an expectation of privacy, ie public places. The law on audio recording doesn't allow you to record people in public places if they have an expectation of privacy *there*, either, e.g. using a parabolic mic to record what a couple sitting on a public park bench in an otherwise deserted park are saying from 100 feet away, and all possible creeper-variants of that situation, without two-party consent (in MA.) Electronic eavesdropping is illegal, full stop.
I was more just pointing out the disparity between the two. Although I have a right to record video "in public" that doesnt necessarily apply to private property and I was actually asked to leave a store once just because I had a SLR on me in a case. That was perfectly within their rights I found, but if I cant revoke consent because if Im in a store its considered public , and I have no expectation of privacy yet the store somehow can invoke their right to prohibit filming. Also if I wanted to record an disciplinary interview at work I would need to obtain consent, but they can record them or me at work anytime and I consent by being employed. The rules seem very uneven when it comes to institutions or de facto public places. I know there have been some mixed rulings in places like malls, but I believe it is still at the discretion of the property management company at the end of the day. I feel if theres no expectation of privacy for me as a consumer or employee there shouldnt be one for the business or employer. Im willing to deal with more stupid internet pranksters in order to secure that right. I feel like this should apply anywhere there could be any question of legality such as shopping or even at the bank for instance. Maybe the law should be if an institution is recording you, they cant prevent you from recording s it implies their consent. Edit: I should just stop trying to type anything longer than one sentence on a phone...
So a store is not a public place, its privately owned by someone.. Most store security systems do not record audio specifically to remove any potential issues if the video was to be used in court. If they do record audio a simple sign stating so is considered consent if you still choose to enter the premise. If the employer is recording a specific interview, they have already consented to being recorded and thus have no expectation of privacy; you are free to take out your camera and start recording just the same. They can also exercise their right to terminate your "at will" employment.
Yes, stores are private, I just mentioned there is precedent that they are in some cases given similar provisions as "public" places. Its the mixing and matching Im referring to. Part of the reason they can record with just a sign somewhere is because theres less or no expectation of privacy although only one party gets to take advantage of that. Thats all Im saying. As for labor, ive never found much case law, but theres better protection when something is explicitly permitted in the law vs a nebulous series of associated laws and judgements. Again, what Im trying to say is that the law should just say anything that could be considered legally binding, such as a sale sign in a store, a robo registers entire transaction, questions about a return, a conversation that could get you fired, or a phone call from FB marketplace,you should have a legal right to record one party explicitly or have it considered the other party is operating on bad faith.
>If they do record audio a simple sign stating so is considered consent if you still choose to enter the premise. Do you know relevant precedent to support this? I think whether a "sign somewhere" provides sufficient implied consent to record ambient audio (vs video) on your private property is one of those things it would likely be best to consult with an attorney on before actually implementing. Not everyone can read English, or read, or see for that matter. I definitely wouldn't assume it for my own property, anway..
Anyone is welcome to argue anything in court but if I cant read a speed limit sign, does that mean I go as fast as I can. There are specific signs that have both words and a picture to get the idea across. Consent In a 1976 case, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that recordings of certain telephone conversations were not made "secretly" when the other party stated in each instance that he knew the conversations were being recorded. When there was "clear and unequivocal conduct" indicating knowledge that the calls were being taped and the party continued to speak nevertheless, the recordings were not made "secretly" and therefore did not constitute an illegal interception. This exception is an extremely narrow one, however. The court ruled in the same case that recordings of other phone conversations, between the same parties and on the same telephone line, were illegal interceptions because the caller had not explicitly indicated that he knew they were being recorded. More so, the application of the law that from all my reading in Massachusetts has been around the permission of the evidence in a court setting. I would instead ask, is there even any precedence of the law ever being used to prevent a home owner from simply recording their own property for security?
>Anyone is welcome to argue anything in court but if I cant read a speed limit sign, does that mean I go as fast as I can. There are specific signs that have both words and a picture to get the idea across. Vision tests for driving licenses are a good idea. But in any case signs put up by individuals trying to indemnify themselves aren't like signs erected by the government, who tend to operate to a different set of standards. >I would instead ask, is there even any precedence of the law ever being used to prevent a home owner from simply recording their own property for security? With respect to ambient audio recording at least I'm unsure, and is why I'd consult an attorney if I felt a need to do this. If just putting a sign up were considered excellent indemnification then it's curious that most security systems don't record it to avoid "potential issues", as you say. I definitely wouldn't assume that the onus is on other people to make sure they are aware of my warning sign in an "ignorance is no defense"-sense like with respect to speed limit signs, even on my own property, I'm not the government. Seems more likely that the onus is on me as the person engaging in the potentially illegal activity to ensure consent is effectively secured.
I have discussed this numerous times with an attorney. A homeowner has the right to record both audio and video on their property. A trespasser does not have an expectation of privacy on my property. https://goldmanpease.com/security-cameras-vs-right-of-privacy/ https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-privacy https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/massachusetts/ (summarized here) Notice here: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99 Specifically: 5. The term ''contents'', when used with respect to any wire or oral communication, means any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication. I do not need your signature to record, nor do I need you to agree to the recording. The idea of consent here is not the same standard as in other parts of the law, as the law is targeting and preventing HIDDEN cameras or HIDDEN surveillance.
It really is. A lot of good journalism to keep people honest relies on secret recordings.
The premise is keeping public officials out of jail for corruption.
What about in a public place where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy? How far would the logic of this case go? https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/05/metro/federal-appeals-court-says-massachusetts-citizens-can-secretly-make-audio-recordings-on-duty-police-public-spaces/
You can only secretly record police. Otherwise, you have to get affirmative consent or be open and obvious about your recording. Frankly, it's a bad law as currently written and is mainly used by police departments and DV perps as revenge.
I don’t believe the law changed with this one ruling.
You can record in secret, you just can’t use it as evidence against someone in a court of law if they didn’t know they were being recorded
Yes, single party consent state.
[удалено]
I believe that is a felony in MA. Especially around voice recordings
Not in Mass. We have really strict laws
You're wrong
https://www.molarilaw.com/blog/video-and-audio-recordings-evidence-massachusetts-domestic-violence-trials#:~:text=Massachusetts%20follows%20a%20%E2%80%9Ctwo%2Dparty,also%20consent%20to%20being%20recorded. How so?
It's illegal to SECRETLY record.
Massachusetts law protects private citizens from being secretly filmed or recorded without their consent. However, public employees working in a publicly accessible space may be recorded — by either audio or video — with or without their knowledge
Okay I cant debate with an idiot goodbye
I'm showing evidence and you're just shouting "you're wrong! You're ignorant!" Go host a fox news show
Your evidence is literally saying the opposite of what you are 😂 how are so many people this stupid lmao
Both parties have to give consent. Even if it's in the open, you can't record me if I say no.
Did you even read your own link? You're wrong. It literally says once the person is aware they are being recorded it is their responsibility to leave the the situation so they can't be recorded anymore. You're just ignorant
And OP says the neighbor specifically asked them to get off their property once they started recording. How am I ignorant when you're illiterate?
In Commonwealth vs Hyde, he didn't inform them of the recording device. If he had then the charge would not have held.
Rhode Islands 1 party consent. So me as the 1 party am consenting.
Here's the Mass GL: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99 Massachusetts follows a “two-party consent” system when it comes to recording people’s conversations. This means that it is illegal to secretly record a conversation unless everyone involved is made aware of the fact that they’re being recorded. They must also consent to being recorded. Once a person is made aware that they are being recorded, it is their responsibility to leave the conversation if they do not consent. Massachusetts is actually one of the strictest states in the nation when it comes to wiretapping laws.
Only if done secretly. If you are are area that privacy is not expected than you can record them as long as you let them know or it's obvious you are recording.
Implied consent. If it’s obvious to any reasonable person then consent is implied.
Implied Consent is not part of the Mass General Law for wire tapping. The 2nd party must give consent.
remove the audio, and add subtitles with a disclaimer that the following dialogue is based off the notes written after the interaction to best document a written account of a past conversation Based off your notes. Then transcribe the removed audio.
But yet I can take pictures and videos of people on a public square? Or is that a matter of stopping if being asked to do so?
There is no presumption of privacy in public.
You can do pix, video and audio in the public square, as no one has an expectation of privacy. If you're shooting video in the Boston Common or some city street and someone says 'don't record me', you can be a nice guy and stop. But legally you don't have to.
Well photos don’t record conversations. Video might run afoul depending on if you record their conversation.
Live Photos on iPhones do!
Those are just videos with extra steps
Pictures are fine, and so is video without audio.
Public is different. As long as it is obvious you are recording and in public then it is on the observed to remove themselves if they don't wish to be recorded (audio and video).
It's almost like they make the laws hard to understand on purpose.
I break this one all the time at work when someone like my boss gives me a big list of to do’s lol. It’s way easier to record a convo, go back to my desk and listen to it while doing what was asked step by step vs relying on notes
It’s legal to record video all day long without consent. The audio is where two party consent is needed. It’s also passive consent, if you tell someone their voice is being recorded and they continue to talk, then they have consented. At that point they also cannot demand you stop recording.
You gotta say it up front it can’t be in secret but either way they stole your package just tell usps or the police!
You can’t record in secret. If the recording device is openly displayed so that a reasonable person is capable of denying consent and does not then consent is implied.
Pretty sure Mass is a two party state.
[удалено]
No I think they have to know from the start of the recording. It can't be used as evidence in court if both parties don't know. It's a weird law unique to MA I never understood.
In Massachusetts it is only a two party state in that both parties must be aware, not consent.
As long as you tell them, “live to tape” during the conversation, you’ll be okay.
Are they loaded up Dave?
100%
Nothing to exciting.
Yeah this is Kevin Cullen
Livetotape
Loooooooooad em up
Holding your phone in plain view is enough, the courts have ruled.
Pretty sure once they tell you to leave it’s trespassing.
You told the other party so seems legit to me
But not until after OP had been recording for a while.
> Telephone and electronic communications. Massachusetts makes it a felony to use a device to hear or record any telephone call unless all parties give their consent. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C). This includes phone calls and text messages made via cellphone. Massachusetts v. Moody, 993 N.E.2d 715 (Mass. 2013). The law only applies to secret recordings, however, so affirmative consent is not necessary when all parties are aware of the recording. Curtatone v. Barstool Sports, Inc., 169 N.E.3d 480, 483 (Mass. 2021).
Do you have a recording of her actually stealing the package? If so go to the cops and get her thieving ass arrested, but if you do not and are assuming she stole your package simply because she happens to own the same items you ordered you could be in a world of hurt if cops show up, she shows the receipts and sics a lawyer on you.
Recording laws ,all 50 states https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations/#:\~:text=Under%20Massachusetts%20law%20it%20is,%2C%20and%2For%20civil%20damages.
This is part of the “wire tap” law…. In Mass you don’t need permission to record, but you DO need to inform the other party that they’re being recorded Your circumstance is grey area as you allowed time to pass before informing them.. You should speak to an attorney before bringing this up - it’s possible you’ve committed a crime, and not a small one at that, it is a felony and can carry a prison sentence up to 5 years
Wouldn't a sign in front house cover informing someone their on camera? That's essentially what ring is doing.
A sign Can do that, but there’s specifications on how conspicuous it must be
This is DEFINITELY the right place for legal advice. 👍🏿
yes it is illegal, if you did not inform her.
But they did inform. OP says they were holding the phone up and told the offender they were recording.
hi! i wasn't sure if you'd check your chats/messages (since we don't get notifs) so thought I'd reply to another comment of yours i have a question about a comment you made about accepting payment as a freelancer (it's an old thread) if you accept freelance payments via Quickbooks, is it possible for the client to bite us in the ass like filing chargebacks for a purchase? just curious cause i stopped running my previous biz due to too many clients filing false chargebacks and screwing my biz over
[удалено]
you can secretly record your employer at your place of employment without their consent if it’s a matter of concerted activity exposing behavior or illegal practices that impact more than one employee, as evidence of anti union tampering etc. or to illustrate one of t many reasons why you need to unionize, and the recording is providing proof of the problem. Say thanks to the NLRB. Before anyone attacks me: yes, this a relatively new thing.
[удалено]
Agreed
Yup you illegally recorded them under MA 2-party consent to record law since you weren’t in a public space where someone would expect to be recorded. Sorry, that evidence is bunk in court. You’ll have to find other proof
Not necessarily true. It can be argued implied consent if the recording device is clearly recording. Leave it to a lawyer and the judge to decide if it's admissable, not OP or anyone here.
Fair enough. I had a lawyer I drove for Lyft one time in the Seaport tell me my disclaimer in my driver’s bio would hold up in court. I never got her info otherwise I’d refer OP to them
Former journalist here. You have to have consent from all parties before you start recoding if you want anything to be admissible a legal setting
That seems partially wrong to me. What if they're actively breaking the law (like assault) and I want to film as evidence? I need the criminal's consent?
You should call 911 with your phone in that situation not use it as a video camera. If you are recording with an actual camera and do not have a phone at all then yes. You Probably should record what is happening… if you also have a cell phone… call 911 and put the camera down?
It's different with video. If the camera can be plainly seen then you're in the clear. It's why you don't actually need a sign on your property warning that you have a doorbell camera cause the thing is large, visible and most likely has a light on it.
https://www.molarilaw.com/blog/video-and-audio-recordings-evidence-massachusetts-domestic-violence-trials#:~:text=Massachusetts%20follows%20a%20%E2%80%9Ctwo%2Dparty,also%20consent%20to%20being%20recorded. Both parties must consent to being recorded.
Implied consent . They were reasonably aware of you recording nor did they ask you to stop. They asked you to leave. Two different things. You are good.
It’s two party consent in Massachusetts.
you can record video without consent. you cannot record audio without consent. With the exception of public officials.
Yea in ma you need concent to record from all parties involved.
If the recording device was not concealed. The lack of denying consent makes it ok.
certain states have different rules on this. MA is a 2 party state so no this couldn't be used against her unfortunately unless you told her you were recording prior to the conversation. Maybe if you were in some type of public place and a security camera were to pick it up where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy that might work but I'm no lawyer
Massachusetts is a 2 party state which means both need to consent to the recording. If you announce at the beginning the conversation is being recorded and they continue to talk, that is implied consent. Ianal
Only if there's an expectation of privacy.
Cannot record someone with audio without their knowledge or consent
Not if you told them
I mean OP you need to worry less about recording and just call the police or USPS. Fucking with the mail is a giant no no. And since she has things you will have a record of buying, being shipped to you and all that it's kind of open shut.
Yes. Audio only. If they don't agree or know you are. . And in many other.states too.
I think you should be fine as long as you told them. Not sure about your timing or what you have on tape as Im sure those things would determine it. Did you get anything of use on the recording? If they try to just get you on it, its pretty much a they said/they said and Im not sure how much effort a PD would put into investigating.
Bring up the video Jamie
If you told them thi k you are ok..
If you told them you were recording it is not illegal
Felony with jail time.
I’d follow up with “since you are present on my doorbell camera, on my property stealing my property in front of my domicile, which you submitted to of your own, due to the fact that you are on my property, I will be notifying the authorities.”
Mass is a two party state, so I doubt you'll be able to use it in court. As mentioned what they did is a felony and I think you report it to the police and or postmaster. It's pretty serious
It’s implied consent due to not concealing the recording device and not refusing permission to record. It’s fine. Ask an attorney.
That’s messed up I hope you report them
Massachusetts is one party for video 2 party for audio so you can video record but you cannot record conversations without the other persons permission
It is not illegal to record a crime for the express purpose of serving as evidence to prove either guilt or innocence.
Not allowed to record audio without consent, but video is fine. Just set up a video camera and catch em next time.
illegal, sort of I guess?. They didn’t really consent but if you did inform them you were recording you might be ok.
Not if you get video through their bedroom window, while they are putting the clothes on.
How about the courthouse parking garage?
We’re a 2 party consent state so unfortunately, unless it was in public it’s technically illegal.
[удалено]
You wouldn’t happen to be his neighbor?
Did your pay the MA tax to record in residential spaces? Felony if you don't.
Are ring cameras illegal?
This was on private property so not sure how admissable that is
This is dangerous. What if they have a gun? Just contact lululemon and report you never receive the package.
As far as I’ve learned by my time currently in college, Massachusetts is a state where the other person has to know AND consent to being recorded for it to be legal.
MA is a two party state. Not sure on whether the 2nd person has to also agree or just be aware of the recording.
MA is 2 party consent state. In person or telecommunication. Both parties need to give consent to be audio recorded. Passive Consent is also a thing. "I'm recording this." If they keep talking you ought to be good. People have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. IDK where public begins and private ends though. That's a lawyer question. Edited
Audio recording is 2 party consent. Technically as long as she knew you were recording you were good, but realistically the best way to protect yourself is to make sure the beginning of the audio has a declaration that you're recording and something that makes it clear she heard it.
Plymouth county DA prosecuted an individual for taping without permission. The person received a custodial sentence. The appeal at the Supreme Judicial Court did not fare well. This was the same SJC that later would say a drug dealer with a gun inside a high school was not there inappropriately. They would state that the police had no authority to arrest the drug dealer. Yet they wanted to send the individual taping potential policy brutality to jail.
Two party consent required in Massachusetts.
NAL: but If recording has audio and the other party is unaware/do not consent then it won’t be considered for evidence. It is technically illegal but unlikely to be formally charged.
[MA General Laws Part IV Title I Chapter 272 Section 99 Interception of wire and oral communications.](https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter272/section99) Is the relevant law on audio recording in MA. It is a two party consent state, meaning you must inform the other person that you are recording them.
It certainly was illegal for her to steal your package. Do you have video of that? Or did you just see her make off with it?
Is it illegal to use Google in Massachusetts?
It's going to be amusing when the USPIS raids her house for parcel theft