question: if you need to have signed consent to audio/video record people, how do cops and investigative journalists not get sued for secret cameras and wire recordings?
comment: 1 - These laws vary by state. In some states it's OK for one party to record the other without informing the other party (called "one party consent statutes"). In 2014 there were 38 states and one federal district that had such laws. 2 - If a police is recording someone without informing them, then it is almost guaranteed to be a part of an investigation where that collection method was authorized. 3 - Even in "all party consent" states, they might specify that the recording is prohibited over telephones or internet calls, for instance, but in person recordings might be tolerable. If you're having a conversation at a cafe with someone, for instance, it might be allowed to record them without their knowledge because it's a public place where one would not have an expectation of privacy.
passages: Laws differ in the United States on how many parties must give their consent before a conversation may be recorded. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, conversations may be recorded if the person is party to the conversation, or if at least one of the people who are party to the conversation have given a third party consent to record the conversation. As of 2010, in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington State, the consent of all parties of the conversation must be obtained in order to record a conversation.
   Security cameras, webcams, camera traps and other pre-positioned recording devices capture whatever happens to take place in their field of view. This raises the question whether their recordings are an original and therefore copyrighted work. For example, "[i]f a security camera mounted in a lobby, recording 24 hours a day, captured a dramatic event, the video could be uncopyrighted."
   BULLET::::3. in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
   In addition to the First and the Seventh Circuits, both the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals have held that the public has a First Amendment right to record public officials. In 2000, in "Smith v. City of Cumming", the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to film the police. Likewise, in 1995, in "Fordyce v. City of Seattle", the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a private citizen could film police conduct at a protest because the First Amendment protects the "right to film matters of public interest". However, both the Third Circuit in "Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle" (2010) and the Fourth Circuit in "Szymecki v. Houck" (2009) have held that even if the constitution protects the right to film the police, such a right was "not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity in those cases’ factual contexts". Additionally, the Fifth Circuit ruled in "Turner v. Driver" (2017) that while the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in that case, the First Amendment protects the right to record police, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Some scholars suggest these various rulings present the potential for a circuit split in cases that involve the filming of police conduct, while others have described the different rulings among circuit courts as " an artificial split—not on the merits of the First Amendment right violated, but on technical qualified immunity ground".
   A court order may be required for telephone voice recording in some areas. Ordinary voice recording in some areas, such as California, requires consent of all parties before the recording can be used in a courtroom or during arbitration. Most meeting minutes are documented in writing by all parties, and the minutes are signed and dated at the end of the meeting.
   "A friend reminded me of those old commercials featuring a close play in an NFL game, with the tag line "You make the call!". The idea was for the TV viewer to pretend he is the referee and call the play how he sees it, and then compare the actual call the referee made in the game. So, in that spirit...this is a game where we examine a close play, and in the comments section of this blog, presumably without the benefit of guidance by the Spirit, we state our case for the call the official should make."
   Section::::Legal Issue.
  
  Does the media, even though they obtain consent from the group they are following (Police, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) have the same access privileges as the police of paramedics do if they are following them on scene?
  
  Section::::Decision.
  
  The Court ruled, ultimately, in favor of the plaintiff on the charges of Invasion of Privacy and infliction of Emotional Distress.
  
  Section::::Decision.:Reasoning.
   BULLET::::- In the state of Maryland, for example, it is illegal to record anybody's voice without their consent, but it is legal to record without the other party's consent if the non-consenting party does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the conversation that is being recorded.
  
  BULLET::::- In other states, including Illinois and Massachusetts, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy clause, and in such states, the person doing the recording would always be in violation of the law.
   The legality of recording by civilians refers to laws regarding the recording of other persons and property by civilians through the means of still photography, videography, and audio recording in various locations. In many places, it is common for the recording of public property, persons within the public domain, and of private property visible or audible from the public domain to be legal. However, laws have been passed restricting such activity in order to protect the privacy of others. To make matters even more complicated, the laws governing still photography may be vastly different from the laws governing any type of motion picture photography.
   BULLET::::- Robert Kearns was the inventor of the intermittent windshield wipers. He acted as his own lawyer in parts of his long legal battles for patent infringement against Ford and Chrysler. His legal battles are the subject of the 2008 film "Flash of Genius."
   Restrictions against the invasion of privacy encompasses journalists as well:
  
  The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office.
  
  Section::::Modern tort law.:Public disclosure.
  
  Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
   Laws prohibiting the photography of civilians for public display have prevented the creation of recordings for Google Street View in some countries in Europe.
  
  Section::::Exceptions.:Voice recording.
   Recording actions in public places without the consent of those being recorded is legal. Recording actions in a private place or in a public place that is out of public view requires the consent of all those being recorded (see O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62). The law has further clauses regarding recording actions of individuals under 18 as well as when it is on one's own property.
  
  Section::::Examples.
   The California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. "Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.", 39 Cal. 4th 95). However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening kidnapping, extortion, bribery, human trafficking, or other felony violence. Also included in the exception is misdemeanor obscenity and threats of injury to persons or property via an electronic communication device (usually a telephone) if directed in whole or in part towards a conversation participant or family members.
   Telephone recordings are governed by federal law and by mainly two types of state laws:
  
  Section::::United States.:Two-party consent states.
  
  States that require that all parties consent to the recording include:
  
  BULLET::::- California
  
  BULLET::::- Connecticut
  
  BULLET::::- Florida
  
  BULLET::::- Hawaii (in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place)
  
  BULLET::::- Illinois (except for electronic communications, see next section)
  
  BULLET::::- Maryland
  
  BULLET::::- Massachusetts (only "secret" recordings are banned, but is the only state without a "public location" exception)
  
  BULLET::::- Montana (requires notification only)
  
  BULLET::::- New Hampshire
  
  BULLET::::- Pennsylvania
   In the United States, anti-photography laws have been passed following the September 11, 2001 attacks and the increased popularity of camera phones. There might be local laws and policies governing the specific landmark or property in which one seeks to photograph. Laws on private property differ. Owners of private property in most places must authorize recording on their own property.
  
  Section::::Exceptions.
  
  Section::::Exceptions.:High-profile locations.
   On October 30, 1979 an NBC camera crew was following a group of Los Angeles Fire Department firefighters and paramedics. A call came in about a man having a heart attack. The camera crew and the paramedics rushed to the home of Brownie and Dave Miller. The camera crew, without consent from anyone, rushed into the house with the paramedics and taped footage of Mr. Dave Miller having what would be a fatal heart attack. The crew later that night would put the footage on the air, also without consent. Brownie Miller filed suit against NBC, Ruben Norte (a producer for NBC) and the city of Los Angeles for trespass, invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress.
   In August 2004, an Annandale, Virginia, man was arrested and detained when his wife was observed by a police officer filming the Chesapeake Bay Bridge as he drove across. He was held as a material witness after he was found to have ties to Hamas. He was later released on bail without being charged.
  
  Section::::Exceptions.:Voyeurism.
  
  Many places have passed or considered legislation that prohibits voyeurism with phones and other similar devices, commonly referred to as "upskirting" or "downblousing." Such behaviors have become common since camera phones have become popular, thereby raising such concerns.
   Nonetheless, research involving deception prevents subjects from exercising their basic right of autonomous informed decision-making and conflicts with the ethical principle of respect for persons.
   R (British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis
  
  Section::::Facts.
  
  Two army officers, B and D had been passing information from the COBRA committee to British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (B Sky B) in the person of Sam Kiley.
   Courts will grant summary judgment if the evidence shows "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Courts ask "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law."
  
  Section::::Court opinion.:Summary judgment.:Kodak.
   BULLET::::2. The individual must be advised of the purposes. The organization must be clear about the purposes; an organization should not state that it is recording the conversation for quality assurance purposes if, in fact, the recording will be used for other purposes. Informing the individual of the purposes can be done in a variety of ways—verbally, by pressing a number on the keypad (in the case of automated messages) or with clear messages on monthly statements. (For example: If you have any questions about your bill please call 1-800-XXX-XXXX. Please note your call will be recorded for...) If the individual proceeds knowing the conversation is being recorded and the purpose of the recording, consent is implied.
   Section::::Autopsy and death scene photographs.:Relevant court cases.
  
  In "New York Times Company v. NASA", the D.C. District Court denied the "New York Times" request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for access to audio recordings of the astronauts involved in the "Challenger" explosion moments before the event. The major argument of the case came down to weighing public interest and the decedents' families, and the court ruled in favor of protecting the decedents' families, claiming that exposing the tapes could cause relatives of the astronauts trauma.
   While these guidelines seem extremely protective of the press, they explicitly deny the creation of “any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law.” Nor does the policy have any substantive punishment for the federal government violations. If the federal prosecutors fail to obtain approval from the attorney general, the extent of the authorized punishment is “an administrative reprimand or other appropriate disciplinary action.” In fact, some courts have found that the guidelines “create no enforceable right.” Therefore, in circuits taking this approach, the news media have no right to appeal for enforcement of these policies before being compelled to testify.
   On March 23, 2007, Cablevision Systems Corp lost a legal battle against several Hollywood studios and television networks to introduce a network-based digital video recorder service to its subscribers. However, on August 4, 2008, Cablevision won its appeal. John M. Walker Jr., a Second Circuit judge, declared that the technology "would not directly infringe" on the media companies' rights. An appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected.
  
presuppositions: You need to have signed consent to audio/video record people. Cops and investigative journalists should get people's consent to audio and video record them.
corrections: Some states do not need signed consent to audio/video record people. Cops and investigative journalists should only get people's consent to audio and video record them if they're in a state that requires that, or if the collection isn't part of an investigation.
raw_presuppositions: You need to have signed consent to audio/video record people. Cops and investigative journalists should get people's consent to audio and video record them.
raw_corrections: Some states do not need signed consent to audio/video record people. Cops and investigative journalists should only get people's consent to audio and video record them if they're in a state that requires that, or if the collection isn't part of an investigation.