A few weeks ago, a Mr. Chi Quang Truong had the misfortune to discover the city of Natick, MA considers use of an audio recording device [such as any cell phone capable of voice memos (or calling voicemail)] sufficient for being charged with "possessing a device for wiretapping". In his case, it was a cheap Olympus digital voice recorder
(
Read more... )
Comments 6
Unless someone uses their cell phone, etc. for surreptitious recording, they won't be charged with a violation. But if they do, you can bet they'll be charged.
(The wiretap law should definitely be changed, or thrown out by a court, but there is unfortunate precedent here, and it will take a lot).
Reply
My concern is the subjective aspect. Since this device has been accepted as a "wiretapping device" because it can make voice memos, they no longer need to wait for voice memo devices to be used to make a criminal charge for possession of ... a new ipod Nano (the one w. voice memo), which wont happen unless they feel like it.
I guess we're safe as long as we don't get any cops mad at us, have friends on the force, or flee the state. How's the Rt 93 commute?
Reply
There's no prosecutor in the world that would be willing to bring charges against someone for mere possession of such a device, and I doubt (even in MA) there's any cop dumb enough to try it. He'd be laughed right out of court, once you point out that everyone in the room is guilty of the same charge.
This really isn't worth worrying about at all.
Reply
I'm very entertained that I'm tired enough to be on this side of this conversation. The 12 day work week is not my friend.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment