Comment by bonsai_spool

2 months ago

> 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?

9 comments

bonsai_spool

Reply
jsw97  2 months ago

Not sure why my comment merited a downvote. In any case, quoting from Mass law:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...

    The term ''interception'' means to secretly hear, secretly record, 
    or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of
    any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting
    device by any person other than a person given prior authority by 
    all parties to such communication.

    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.

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.

  • micromacrofoot  2 months ago

    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.

    • jsw97  2 months ago

      One complication for geofencing is that the Mass law applies if one party is in the state. So if you're on a zoom with someone in Mass, you're still violating.

      1 reply →

  • bonsai_spool  2 months ago

    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.

  • PyWoody  2 months ago 

      Not sure why my comment merited a downvote.

    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.

MarleTangible  2 months ago

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.