While it's legal to take someone's photo in public, because they don't have an expectation of privacy, it's generally not legal to record audio without their knowledge.
It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed.
These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.
almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party.
Doesn't that apply to wiretap laws (e.g. phone recordings, like the Monica Lewinsky case) rather than open-air conversation? For example, I could see how a hack activating their phone microphones and listening that way would be illegal, but open-air conversation?
Yes, that applies to wiretap laws. Everyone (varies with state as mentioned) has to be informed and accept that they are being recorded for the call to be admissible as evidence in a court of law. Without that permission, it will be discarded.
I should add; if this were not the case, then manufactures of modern gadgets would be much less likely to have active monitoring of your microphone, for fear of how that action could be interpreted in court. Siri, what are your thoughts on this?
Hmm... how does that play with video recording? We argue that it is fine to take video in public because of no expectation of privacy, but video implies an audio track too.
Could you, or anyone, cite the USC on this one - that video images only are allowed in public spaces and/or that audio recording is specifically not allowed?
Just curious what the workarounds are really. If the wiretap style "one party" rules were applied then it seems you could just make sure that you get your own audio on there too; or with audiovisual recording you could sit in the shot somewhere and record people so long as you also captured your own voice. It would seem intent primarily to record others (as opposed to it being incidental to the recording you made) would be close to impossible to prove under such circumstances.
Does that vary by state? Yesterday's Bay Area news reports about the suspect beaten after a chase had a private surveillance video recording with audio, made public.
It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed.
These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.