Massachusetts law makes undercover journalist recording illegal, Supreme Court declines to intervene

The state of Massachusetts has a law that makes it illegal to secretly record people without their permission, although police are allowed to do it.
What is the problem with this law? Suppose a person or group of people are doing something illegal, or abusing their position, or doing something bad in secret that the public has right to know about. How can a journalist prove it actually happened without a recording?
An individual might know about something illegal happening, but unless they can get police to get involved, that individual will be legally prohibited from being able to collect the evidence to show that it is happening.

This is yet one more law that gives law enforcement and government a kind of monopoly on information.

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear James O'Keefe's Project Veritas appeal against lower court decisions dismissing a challenge to a Massachusetts law that prohibits anyone except officers from police, to make secret recordings.

According to his petition to the Supreme Court, Project Veritas challenged a decision made against him by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, saying that the law was so broad as to infringe upon liberty.

Project Veritas had not actually broken the law, but wanted the law thrown out so it could carry its trademark of undercover journalism into the state.​

Supreme Court refuses to hear Project Veritas vs. Massachusetts Registration Act case (goodwordnews.com)

Project Veritas initially had received a favorable ruling by a federal district court, which agreed with Project Veritas that the law should not apply to recordings made by government officials in "public spaces".

But a First Court of Appeals overturned that initial ruling, which is why Project Veritas tried to take it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has declined to hear it.

What this means is that, for example, if you see politician in Massachusetts doing something illegal like taking a bribe, it is illegal to secretly record them.


related thread: California passed a law to cover up for Planned Parenthood

 

Because Mass is a "two party consent state", and all such recordings by a private individual are illegal. Does not matter if it is a criminal action, in a changing room at a department store, or on the beach. A private citizen can not record another without their permission. No matter what it is.

 

I find such type of laws totalitarian.
For one thing it is a type of control of information, giving the government yet one more type of power that is denied to individual citizens. And when something illegal is going on and the government refuses to do anything about it, individual citizens may be left with no tools to be able to prove and show the public (including elected representatives) what is happening.

This seems like a major curtailment of investigative journalism. And seems like a law that could be there to help cover up government misdoings.
More monopoly on power in the hands of law enforcement.

If you are choosing to talk to me, why shouldn't I be able to record what you are saying to me?

Let's look at this from a Libertarian perspective. Am I really infringing on your rights if I secretly record the conversation you are having with me?

(The only possible exception I could see to this is a doctor talking about private medical information with a patient, or a woman engaging in a sexual conversation with a man that could be embarrassing if it got out)

 

So you have no problem with people recording you anywhere you go.

Looking at it from a purely "Libertarian perspective", that is a violation of my right to privacy. Nobody has a right to record me without my permission.

 

I guarantee you that if the guy next door was using a drone to hover over your fence and record your teenage daughters laying out in your backyard, you'd change your mind pretty damn quick...

 

Or recording them in a dressing room.

"Oh, I'm watching for shoplifters!"

 

I see your points. Maybe there needs to be special more specific laws to address these issues.

I think there should still be a role for undercover investigative journalism using recording devices without permission.
How the law distinguishes between legitimate justified uses and abuse and obvious invasion of privacy, may be another matter.

 

Does this only apply to voice recordings, or video too?

 

No.

And there is no way to distinguish.

 

Maybe we're just not creative enough to think of the correct laws.
So instead it will end up an "all or nothing" type of thing.

So sad. I think there are theoretical ways of insuring individual liberties while at the same time addressing issues of the public good.

 

No, it is knowing that evil people will use loopholes to try and justify anything they do.

"Oh no, this is not videos of pubescent children in changing rooms. It is an expose on how many kids steal!"

"No, this is not video of two teens making out in a car in the park. I was watching and recording to make sure nobody attacked them!"

Trust me, seen these and more used as an attempt to justify crap like this. That is why states have "two party consent" laws. There is no way to ever prevent that kind of abuse, therefore there are no loopholes. Illegal is illegal. Period.

 

And that also includes evil people taking cover behind some debatable or controversial law that was supposedly put in place for the public good.

What if the law was changed to allow recording only in cases where the party being recorded is aware of the other party who is doing the recording being there?
In other words, I'm not allowed to record it unless I am seeing it and hearing it, and you are aware I am seeing it and hearing it.

I think many of your examples are creating false analogies.

 

Uh, that is exactly what a two party consent law is. There is no need to "change the law", that is the law as it is right now.

 

I think you totally misunderstood what I was saying. I meant the party being recorded would be aware of the other person there who was doing the recording, but would not be aware that that person was using an electronic device to record it. The person would have consented to a human being watching and hearing what they were saying, but not be aware of the recording device.

 

That is not two person consent. That is secret eavesdropping, and illegal.

I pay somebody to have sex with you, but without your knowing record it in order to blackmail. According to what you want, what I did was completely legal.

What part of the law do you not understand? Or do you really like the idea of having absolutely no privacy? For somebody that screams you are following "libertarian beliefs", you are actually doing the exact opposite and seem to support a state where anybody is free to record anybody. For any reason they seem to want.

 

The person is implicitly consenting to being watched and listened to. That was my point.

So it is different from the examples you gave.

I wrote in a previous post that there should probably be specific exceptions in the law for cases like that.

As you should well know, that example you just gave is not representative of all cases where the person does not know they are being recorded.

 

my state, as long as one party knows the recording is happening, it's legal

this stops people from planting bugs, but allows you to record what is said during a business deal, ect....

I do disable the audio recording on my home security cameras as not sure if two people walked by them if I would be breaking the law

 

And you do not seem to get that it does not matter.

You seem to want to have this magical bending, where things you want can somehow be excluded. But it does not work that way. There are no exceptions, the law covers everybody and every circumstance, or it does not work.

Especially just because one person feels like a vigilante and wants to go around ignoring any law he wants for their crusade.

 

I'd start suing any business with security cameras then. They don't have my permissions and use isn't consent under the law. Make the SCOTUS rule on that.

 

That is the "Two Party" law is. That is also why most phone banks how have messages repeated constantly saying that you are being recorded.

The law is a bit different in public spaces, but even then it is often rather limited. In most places, video surveillance is allowed so long as the cameras are not hidden. And they are largely restricted to video only, not audio. Want to put a camera in front of your house or in your store, that is allowed as it is a public venue. But adding audio can get you in trouble, that will depends on the state and locality. Some have no problem with audio, others restrict or outlaw it altogether.

And that all ultimately boils down to if the location is recognized as a place for privacy. The entrance to a bar or store is seen as a "public space", as is the floor of a gym or a store. But places like private offices, bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms are seen as "private spaces", and any recording in them is outlawed without very specific requirements.

One of the reasons I will never work at Disney again is the fact that they had cameras everywhere. Elevators, hallways, break rooms, parking garage, even in the offices. We all knew they were there, signed waivers saying we would allow all video and sound captured to be used by the company for security purposes, and that violating any of the many rules could see us terminated. Putting a camera in an office in California is illegal. But if the employees all consent to having it there then it is allowed.

 

Once again, goes back to public space laws.

You can have a case if they are all hidden, and depending on locality if there is no sign warning of their use. A camera that looks over the floor in a restaurant is legal, but having one that only focuses on a specific booth is not.

But the legality of security cameras is well established, and goes back over half a century. But in general, so long as it is recognized as a "public space", the camera is clearly visible, and there is no reasonable belief of privacy then video surveillance is allowed.

But notice, in most states and localities, the cameras must be visible. No "hidden cameras", even though they can be concealed to a degree, once again depending on local laws. One of the most common ways is through "domes". Those normally hold from 1-5 cameras in each, and the dome makes it so that people can not see exactly what direction they are facing. But the dome itself is visible, so the people know there is a chance they are being recorded.

 

But that's irrelevant because it shouldn't even be the law.
You are trying to use examples that don't apply here, like when the subject does not know you are watching and listening to them, or capturing intimate sexual moments.

You seem to be making an overgeneralization fallacy by saying "any law". Of course I would support the application of that type of law in some instances, but not in others. So on the whole, it is not a good law. I think it should be completely reworded and get a lot more into specific types of situations.

It would be like asking me if I support a law that implements the death penalty for anyone convicted of murder. That's not a "yes or no" question since I would support that in some cases but not others.

 

I don't think the concept you are describing is even really logical. We could just as easily require people to consent to being recorded whenever they are going in a public place, couldn't we?

The issue here seems to who owns the property and whether the owner of that space can require people to "consent".
In many places you are automatically assumed to give your consent if a sign is posted in the entrance to the place.

 

So you are fine being recorded everywhere you go, by anybody for any reason.

Fine, but most of us do not. That is why there are laws in place.

And more and more, I am finding the very fact that you claimed to argue from a "libertarian" stance is hilarious. You seem to actually support a massive police state where nobody has privacy, ever.

 

Journalism did just fine without secretly bugging people before there were recording devices. . They used a pen and a pad and some shorthand. They can do just fine without doing it now.

I am not interested in being secretly recorded, thanks. Two party consent.