Comment by jsw97
2 months ago
This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts.
https://www.romanolaw.com/can-i-record-a-conversation-in-mas... (Linking to discussion, not the statute, because it confirms that it is in fact enforced.)
Come to think of it, this would also include smart glasses, etc. And whatever those LG devices were doing. Paging the AG...
> This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts.
I hear this a lot but such a perspective elides the novelty (and the actual question):
If I devise a mechanical device that semi-faithfully creates marks that convey information about a conversation - but which does not offer a way to replay the conversation whatsoever - does that constitute a recording subject to two-party consent?
If so, how does this relate to a potential decision to write notes about a call right after as a memo/in my diary?
If so, how does this relate to having my secretary record the conversation in shorthand while listening furtively to the conversation?
Not sure why my comment merited a downvote. In any case, quoting from Mass law:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...
If you get content, useful or otherwise, from the recording, you are violating the law. Unless you fall under one the exemptions, which you probably don't.
So first question, "devise a mechanical device" -- violates. Second, "write notes", no. Third question, "secretary record" -- no.
Right it does secretly record, because of the 15s buffer. "Record then delete" or "Record but can't access" is not acceptable, the law covers intercepting entirely.
Apple is banking on the transcripts-not-recordings and notification sounds (can't be disabled) to avoid it, but MA law is more strict.
I doubt "15s buffer" will hold up as "not a recording" and a notification that the recording is used 15 seconds later (during which a person could have walked away) won't be good enough.
AFAIK one problem is that the law is written to punish the recorder, not the provider of the technology. So it will likely slip by until someone makes a claim against an individual using it, and Apple will end up geofencing it.
2 replies →
Fair enough, it seems the watch would be an 'intercepting device' and thus all parties would need to agree for any party to use the device for the summary function.
There seems to be a mass downvoting scheme on HN lately. I don't know who's behind it and what their motives are but I constantly see valid comments made within the last five minutes greyed out.
2 replies →
I would like to raise another question. If I recap a meeting onto physical paper, by hand, is it still considered a felony?
The point I'm trying to make by this exaggeration is that sometimes the information itself is private and recording that information causes issues as well.
e.g. a military personal taking a pen and paper and listing some secret information they know of, this piece of paper by definition is also subject to regulation that is supposed to keep secret information secure.
I believe the same is true in other states. Good luck convincing a DA to bring charges against any of these corporations.
Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical. Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection?
Laws like this provide cover for abusers and deceivers, by preemptively spoiling objective evidence and making any accusations depend on hearsay instead.
It's not illegal for you to remember, it's illegal for you to record. There's a difference.
For me, I don't want to live in a world where if I say something embarrassing or not well thought out, someone pushes a button and the last 15 seconds is transcribed as evidence. That's a different world to the previous one where it would be someone's word fori it.
As for the fact that phone could already do this, that's not the point. Phone users have to go out of their way to make it happen so it's generally unlikely to happen. The watch feature though is always on and just waiting for you to press "save last 15 seconds"
Same with the always-on transcription feature that you dont even need to interact with. I like not having to speak with extreme precision, knowing my words are going into some record.
> Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical
Really disagree on this, I think all states should be two party consent, personally.
> Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection?
It's not illegal, it's just that the other person has to know that you're doing that and consent to it.
Giving them the chance to walk away or to tell a person and their Meta glasses to fuck off is important.
People are fucking liars. Everyone, everywhere, always.
I want to record every conversation surreptitiously, because that’s the only way to catch them.
The reason we can’t is because our politicians and legislators are the biggest liars of them all. It would spell their immediate downfall.
2 replies →
Yes, let’s do something illegal to force a discussion. A discussion that already happened when writing the law…