Privacy

Summary of statute(s): Iowa has two sets of similar statutes dealing with the interception of oral, telephonic or electronic communications. Both laws bar the recording or interception of such communications by means of any mechanical or electronic device without the consent of at least one party. The state prohibits disclosure of the illegally intercepted contents of such communications. Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Summary of statute(s): Indiana bars the recording or interception of any telephonic or electronic communication by means of any mechanical or electronic device without the consent of at least one party to the conversation. The state also prohibits disclosure of images intercepted in violation of its video voyeurism law. Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Summary of statute(s): In Illinois, an eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation or intercept, retain or transcribe a telephone or electronic communication without the consent of all parties involved. While the all-party consent requirement does not apply to police officers acting within the scope of their duties, the law provides for harsher penalties for anyone caught recording police activities while in public. The U.S.

Summary of statute(s): An individual may record or disclose the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication if he or she is a party to the communication, or has received prior consent from one of the parties. The state provides both civil and criminal penalties for violators.

In-person conversations: At least one party must give consent in order to record an in-person conversation. Idaho Code Ann. § 18-6702.

Summary of statute(s): An individual may record or disclose the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication if he or she is a party to the communication, or has received prior consent from one of the parties. In addition, the state’s hidden camera law prohibits recording images of a person in private areas while in any stage of undress. The state provides both civil and criminal penalties for violators.

Summary of statute(s): An individual may record or disclose the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication if he or she is a party to the communication or has received prior consent from one of the parties. The state prohibits the use of cameras to observe private activities without the consent of all parties involved, and also prohibits disclosure of the contents of illegally obtained recordings. However, Georgia carves out an exception, allowing the parents of minor children to intercept private telephonic and electronic communications without consent.

Summary of statute(s): All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Disclosing communications in violation of the state’s statute is prohibited. Both criminal and civil penalties exist for such infractions. The state’s video voyeurism law bans the secret recording underneath or through the clothing of individuals without their consent, or in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Summary of statute(s): In the District of Columbia, an individual may record or disclose the contents of a wire or oral communication if he or she is a party to the communication, or has received prior consent from one of the parties. The District’s voyeurism law prohibits secretly taking images of people in private settings and distributing them without consent. The District also contains several obscure city rules regulating the activities of commercial street photographers

Summary of statute(s): Delaware’s wiretapping and surveillance laws require at least one party’s consent to record both in-person conversations and electronic communications. However, there is some conflict in the laws. A state privacy law makes it illegal to intercept private conversations without the consent of all parties. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4). The wiretapping law is much more recent, though, and at least one federal court has held that, even under the privacy law, an individual can record his own conversations. United States v.

Summary of statute(s): Connecticut requires at least one party’s consent to record an in-person conversation, and the consent of all parties to a telephonic conversation. The state’s voyeurism law prohibits taking visual images of another person without that person’s consent or knowledge when there is an expectation of privacy.