Massachusetts Laws pertaining to audio recording
The information below was copied verbatim from the following
internet web site:
http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/massachusetts.html
In Massachusetts it is illegal to willfully intercept, attempt to intercept or have someone else intercept on one's behalf any wire or oral communication. To intercept is "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."
Punishment is a fine of up to $10,000, up to five years in state prison or both, or two and a half years in a jail or house of correction.
It is also illegal to willfully use or disclose any information concerning the identity of the parties or the existence, contents, substance, purport or meaning of such a communication if one knows that the information was obtained through illegal interception. Violation of this provision is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for up to two years, a fine of up to $5,000 or both.
Reasonable expectation of privacyConsent
In a 1976 case, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that recordings of certain
telephone conversations were not made "secretly" when the other party
stated in each instance that he knew the conversations were being recorded. When
there was "clear and unequivocal conduct" indicating knowledge that
the calls were being taped and the party continued to speak nevertheless, the
recordings were not made "secretly" and therefore did not constitute
an illegal interception. This exception is an extremely narrow one, however. The
court ruled in the same case that recordings of other phone conversations,
between the same parties and on the same telephone line, were illegal
interceptions because the caller had not explicitly indicated that he knew they
were being recorded.
Possession
It is illegal to possess a device if the possessor knows it is intended to be
used for interception or under circumstances that show an intent to intercept.
Violation is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a jail or house of
correction for up to two years, a fine of up to $5,000 or both.
Anyone who is an accessory to or who participates in a conspiracy to commit any of the prohibited offenses will be punished the same as the actual offender. Proof of the installation of an interception device, under circumstances that show an intent to intercept, will be considered evidence of a violation of the interception statute.
Listening in on a telephone extension is not considered interception when the extension is being used "in the ordinary course of business." A Massachusetts appeals court ruled in 1996 that it is not an illegal interception for a family member to listen in on (but not record) the telephone conversation of another family member through the use of a standard residential extension phone. In 1987, the state's highest court ruled that a hospital extension telephone used by an employee to identify the voice of a man suspected of making bomb threats to the hospital qualified as being used in the ordinary course of business and was therefore not an illegal interception.
Civil remedies
Anyone whose communication is illegally intercepted, disclosed or used can
sue to recover either actual damages or statutory damages calculated at the rate
of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater. Reasonable
attorney's fees and court costs are also available, as are punitive damages if
the plaintiff can show actual harm.
It is not necessary to show that the violation of the statute was intentional or done "with reckless disregard of one's legal obligations" in order to recover damages. To be actionable under the civil provisions, Massachusetts' highest court has said, an interception does not need to rise to the level of criminal conduct covered by the penal provisions of the law.
Another provision of Massachusetts law gives the superior courts jurisdiction to enforce citizens' rights against "unreasonable, substantial or serious interference" with their privacy and to award damages in connection with the violation of those rights. Although most such suits are for commercial exploitation of a person's name or likeness, interception of one's private conversation would probably fall within the provision.
Sources