wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:





On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party.

You may need to check back on that
To the best of my knowledge Open recording where the participant KNOWS he is
being recorded is legal, since effectively with the knowledge the
participant is implying consent
The alternative is to state that the conversation is over if the
recording continues.



A I recall, the last big stink over
this kind of recording came up a few years ago when a
motorist recorded a cop during a routine traffic stop. The
guy was arrested for it. Really dumb. I think it was Maryland.


Meanwhile, a Federal Appeals court has declared that recording police is a
constitutionally protected right in the best interest of society
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5618/federal-court-rules-videotaping-police-is-a-first-amendment-right/
" The filming of government officials engaged in their duties
in a public place, including police officers performing their
responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles.
Gathering information about government officials in a
form that can readily be disseminated to others serves
a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and
promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218"
Not sure if the US Supreme Court has ruled on that



It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?