It seems plainly to be a wiretap under the laws of my state (MA): anything “capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying or recording a wire or oral communica

It seems plainly to be a wiretap under the laws of my state (MA): anything “capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying or recording a wire or oral communication.” With some additional carve outs, none of which appear to apply to ShotSpotter. I’m not arguing that properly scoped and protected ShotSpotter couldn’t be allowed by MA legislators, but it sure doesn’t fall apart under scrutiny by my reading of the law. The court seems to agree in the text you copied in your upthread quote: > However, the court found that the exchange was an “oral communication” and that the recording was a prohibited “interception” under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act because the defendant had no knowledge that the exchange was being recorded. Which I think is the proper interpretation of the written law.