4 ms·

This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts. https://www.romanolaw.com/can-i-record-a-conversation-in-massachusetts/ https://www.romanolaw.com/can-i-record-a

by jsw97 16d ago

This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts. https://www.romanolaw.com/can-i-record-a-conversation-in-massachusetts/ https://www.romanolaw.com/can-i-record-a-conversation-in-mas... (Linking to discussion, not the statute, because it confirms that it is in fact enforced.) Come to think of it, this would also include smart glasses, etc. And whatever those LG devices were doing. Paging the AG...

bonsai_spool 16d ago
> This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts. I hear this a lot but such a perspective elides the novelty (and the actual question): If I devise a mechanical device that semi-faithfully creates marks that convey information about a conversation - but which does not offer a way to replay the conversation whatsoever - does that constitute a recording subject to two-party consent? If so, how does this relate to a potential decision to write notes about a call right after as a memo/in my diary? If so, how does this relate to having my secretary record the conversation in shorthand while listening furtively to the conversation?
- jsw97 16d ago
  Not sure why my comment merited a downvote. In any case, quoting from Mass law: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha... The term ''interception'' means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication. The term ''contents'', when used with respect to any wire or oral communication, means any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication. If you get content, useful or otherwise, from the recording, you are violating the law. Unless you fall under one the exemptions, which you probably don't. So first question, "devise a mechanical device" -- violates. Second, "write notes", no. Third question, "secretary record" -- no.
  - bonsai_spool 16d ago
    Fair enough, it seems the watch would be an 'intercepting device' and thus all parties would need to agree for any party to use the device for the summary function.
  - PyWoody 16d ago
    Not sure why my comment merited a downvote. There seems to be a mass downvoting scheme on HN lately. I don't know who's behind it and what their motives are but I constantly see valid comments made within the last five minutes greyed out.
    - monegator 16d ago
      the usual: write anything anti ai / anti apple and the marketing bots report you en masse. Same shit that happens on a multitude of websites
      - ranger_danger 15d ago
        Lately for me it's "anything employing calm and rational critical thinking against a hivemind already dead set on misinformation gets downvoted."
  - micromacrofoot 16d ago
    Right it does secretly record, because of the 15s buffer. "Record then delete" or "Record but can't access" is not acceptable, the law covers intercepting entirely. Apple is banking on the transcripts-not-recordings and notification sounds (can't be disabled) to avoid it, but MA law is more strict. I doubt "15s buffer" will hold up as "not a recording" and a notification that the recording is used 15 seconds later (during which a person could have walked away) won't be good enough. AFAIK one problem is that the law is written to punish the recorder, not the provider of the technology. So it will likely slip by until someone makes a claim against an individual using it, and Apple will end up geofencing it.
    - jsw97 16d ago
- MarleTangible 16d ago
  I would like to raise another question. If I recap a meeting onto physical paper, by hand, is it still considered a felony? The point I'm trying to make by this exaggeration is that sometimes the information itself is private and recording that information causes issues as well. e.g. a military personal taking a pen and paper and listing some secret information they know of, this piece of paper by definition is also subject to regulation that is supposed to keep secret information secure.
akersten 16d ago
Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical. Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection? Laws like this provide cover for abusers and deceivers, by preemptively spoiling objective evidence and making any accusations depend on hearsay instead.
- magicalist 16d ago
  > Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical Really disagree on this, I think all states should be two party consent, personally. > Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection? It's not illegal, it's just that the other person has to know that you're doing that and consent to it. Giving them the chance to walk away or to tell a person and their Meta glasses to fuck off is important.
  - voakbasda 16d ago
    People are fucking liars. Everyone, everywhere, always. I want to record every conversation surreptitiously, because that’s the only way to catch them. The reason we can’t is because our politicians and legislators are the biggest liars of them all. It would spell their immediate downfall.
    - lelandbatey 16d ago
      Everyone being liars means you and I are both liars, same as the politicians. But the politicians have the power and if we remove two party consent then they get to surreptitiously record you and leverage that power. It doesnt even the power playing field. We can alreay write notes down for every conversation and then send them to the person involved saying "we talked about X, Y, and Z." That last step is the key because it lets them object in writing if you mischaracterize things. From a "catching someone in a lie" the most important step is that one, because you form a paper trail where the other party can correct or contest what was written and bring that up now, and the fact that they didn't is itself evidence in case of a dispute later. The apple watch feature doesn't do that, it just dragnets everything. Even if it recorded the audio, we are in a faked-audio world so unless you have some signal that they agreed that they said a thing ahead of time, they can always deny it later.
voakbasda 16d ago
I believe the same is true in other states. Good luck convincing a DA to bring charges against any of these corporations.

by jsw97 16d ago

bonsai_spool 16d ago

> This is, I believe, a felony in Massachusetts. I hear this a lot but such a perspective elides the novelty (and the actual question): If I devise a mechanical device that semi-faithfully creates marks that convey information about a conversation - but which does not offer a way to replay the conversation whatsoever - does that constitute a recording subject to two-party consent? If so, how does this relate to a potential decision to write notes about a call right after as a memo/in my diary? If so, how does this relate to having my secretary record the conversation in shorthand while listening furtively to the conversation?

jsw97 16d ago
Not sure why my comment merited a downvote. In any case, quoting from Mass law: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha... The term ''interception'' means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication. The term ''contents'', when used with respect to any wire or oral communication, means any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication. If you get content, useful or otherwise, from the recording, you are violating the law. Unless you fall under one the exemptions, which you probably don't. So first question, "devise a mechanical device" -- violates. Second, "write notes", no. Third question, "secretary record" -- no.
- bonsai_spool 16d ago
  Fair enough, it seems the watch would be an 'intercepting device' and thus all parties would need to agree for any party to use the device for the summary function.
- PyWoody 16d ago
  Not sure why my comment merited a downvote. There seems to be a mass downvoting scheme on HN lately. I don't know who's behind it and what their motives are but I constantly see valid comments made within the last five minutes greyed out.
  - monegator 16d ago
    the usual: write anything anti ai / anti apple and the marketing bots report you en masse. Same shit that happens on a multitude of websites
    - ranger_danger 15d ago
      Lately for me it's "anything employing calm and rational critical thinking against a hivemind already dead set on misinformation gets downvoted."
- micromacrofoot 16d ago
  Right it does secretly record, because of the 15s buffer. "Record then delete" or "Record but can't access" is not acceptable, the law covers intercepting entirely. Apple is banking on the transcripts-not-recordings and notification sounds (can't be disabled) to avoid it, but MA law is more strict. I doubt "15s buffer" will hold up as "not a recording" and a notification that the recording is used 15 seconds later (during which a person could have walked away) won't be good enough. AFAIK one problem is that the law is written to punish the recorder, not the provider of the technology. So it will likely slip by until someone makes a claim against an individual using it, and Apple will end up geofencing it.
  - jsw97 16d ago
MarleTangible 16d ago
I would like to raise another question. If I recap a meeting onto physical paper, by hand, is it still considered a felony? The point I'm trying to make by this exaggeration is that sometimes the information itself is private and recording that information causes issues as well. e.g. a military personal taking a pen and paper and listing some secret information they know of, this piece of paper by definition is also subject to regulation that is supposed to keep secret information secure.

akersten 16d ago

Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical. Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection? Laws like this provide cover for abusers and deceivers, by preemptively spoiling objective evidence and making any accusations depend on hearsay instead.

magicalist 16d ago
> Eh, I hope Apple continues to provide this and it forces the needed discussion about how two-party consent requirements are nonsensical Really disagree on this, I think all states should be two party consent, personally. > Why should it be illegal for me to remember exactly a conversation that I participated in, instead of only being allowed to have a vague recollection? It's not illegal, it's just that the other person has to know that you're doing that and consent to it. Giving them the chance to walk away or to tell a person and their Meta glasses to fuck off is important.
- voakbasda 16d ago
  People are fucking liars. Everyone, everywhere, always. I want to record every conversation surreptitiously, because that’s the only way to catch them. The reason we can’t is because our politicians and legislators are the biggest liars of them all. It would spell their immediate downfall.
  - lelandbatey 16d ago
    Everyone being liars means you and I are both liars, same as the politicians. But the politicians have the power and if we remove two party consent then they get to surreptitiously record you and leverage that power. It doesnt even the power playing field. We can alreay write notes down for every conversation and then send them to the person involved saying "we talked about X, Y, and Z." That last step is the key because it lets them object in writing if you mischaracterize things. From a "catching someone in a lie" the most important step is that one, because you form a paper trail where the other party can correct or contest what was written and bring that up now, and the fact that they didn't is itself evidence in case of a dispute later. The apple watch feature doesn't do that, it just dragnets everything. Even if it recorded the audio, we are in a faked-audio world so unless you have some signal that they agreed that they said a thing ahead of time, they can always deny it later.

voakbasda 16d ago

I believe the same is true in other states. Good luck convincing a DA to bring charges against any of these corporations.