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

Anyone can secretly record you. They just can't take that recording to the public without ending up criminally charged.

Do you see the difference? Mostly only those who try to bring investigative journalism to the public will be punished, while those who record you for their sick perverted individual desires will probably go unpunished.

How about pass a law that no information in a journalism article can be used as evidence against a person to criminally charge them with unlawful recording?

 

In Oregon it is legal to record telephone conversations with the consent of at least one party, but recording in-person conversations requires the consent of all parties except for in certain circumstances, such as when all parties reasonably should have known they were being recorded. Illegal recording is a misdemeanor that can also give rise to civil damages.
OR Rev Stat § 165.540 (definition & penalty), § 133.739 (civil damages)

I see no reason to exempt journalists. They can take notes, and document as they see fit and hand those notes over to their editor. I, as a reader, get to decide if I believe them, or the source they purpurt to be accurately detailing. That's how this used to be done.

 

Agreed. However, I still believe that "public" is a misnomer when applied to private businesses. They aren't actually public spaces. There are too many limitations on what behavior you're allowed to do while in the private space that is open to public shopping, or dining for example. The idea is active consent. Simply stepping through a door doesn't produce active consent. It certainly wouldn't apply to minors who cannot grant consent under the law in most states.

The Veritas case seems to be a case that MSM should be pretty concerned with though. It destroys their ability to produce gotcha video, for example. And then knowingly broadcasting illegally obtained video seems to put them in legal jeopardy because of these kinds of laws. Think about how many times MSM produced entertainment products/shows or "news" the included video obtained in that fashion. But somehow, there still seems to be a niche carved out in the law that still somehow allows those outlets to continue broadcasting them, including in states where that video is considered to be illegally collected. I suggest there is a successful legal challenge to it.

I would also make a different argument. Government doesn't always equate to law enforcement. Abuse of surveillance exercised as a control of the public, for example, isn't law enforcement. It is authoritarianism. See China. Ignoring the concept of privacy, there seems to be a wide disparity on what the individual states recognize then as appropriate law enforcement, and federal government oversteps those state preferences generally. The 4th, 5th 14th amendments could be argued to protect the citizen or individual from such variation and overstep, and application towards non public spaces, ie businesses, who don't have a law enforcement charter would thusly fall afoul of those protections.

 

No, you can not. People have gone to jail over that. It is highly illegal in most places.

I have no idea why you think this, that is not how it works at all.

 

They are, because anybody can walk in without express permission of the owner or manager. You can not simply be arrested for entering a "public space", anybody can do it. Unlike a "private space", like a home, dressing room, etc.

But if you look, almost anywhere that has active cameras also has some kind of legal notice stating you are being recorded.



Most communities and states have laws requiring such postings, and they are so common that most simply ignore them. Don't want to be recorded, then don't go there.

 

The surveillance state has to be addressed at some point. When these cameras can all be accessed via law enforcement absent consent or a warrant from the operators, the concept of privacy evaporates.

 

And they can not be accessed without consent. They can not even touch them.

I was involved in security for many years. And part of our process after we captured a shoplifter was to save off all video surveillance we had collected of them and turn it over to the police. That is in no way required, we did that on our own as it was turned over to the DA and made conviction easier. Also because as part of the Shopkeepers Restitution Law, they could then file a claim to recover expenses from the criminal involved in capturing them and damages they did.

But the cops could not just come in and take that evidence, no more than they could use our equipment. So I have no idea what you think, but it does not work that way.