wiretapping and interception

[Sahirrnee]

I live in Maryland

If I am talking to person A and person A purposely calls person B and puts the phone on speaker so person B can hear the conversation without my knowledge or permission is person A in violation of wire tapping/interception law?

[Doctor_Jackson]

Good question, muddied by a couple of things:

1. This is an area governed by state law. In the case of interstate calls, the more restrictive state law applies, so it would be important to know if all parties were in the same state or, if not, what state(s) they were in.
2. Most state laws are pretty specific about unknown recording of a call being a crime, not so much about allowing a 3rd party to listen in unbeknownst to one or more of the other parties.

Your specific case seems to me to be the ethical equivalent of motioning someone in from another room and allowing them to hear the telephone conversation. I’m not sure it’s illegal, but it seems highly unethical.

FYI, per this site the Maryland wiretap law specifically mentions recording:

Under Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, it is unlawful to tape record a conversation without the permission of all the parties. See Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp., 945 F.Supp. 890 (D. Md. 1996). Additionally, recording with criminal or tortuous purpose is illegal, regardless of consent. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402.

Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.

Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. MD. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410.

State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman’s presentation in stranger’s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that because states are at liberty to adopt more restrictive provisions than those contained in federal law, the secretary-treasurer of a local union who recorded conversations between himself and management representatives could still be prosecuted under the state statute, even if his conduct was arguably protected under the National Labor Relations Act. Petric v. State, 504 A.2d 1168 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1986).

[Sahirrnee]

Everybody was in Maryland.
I suspect some conversations were recorded as well. I just don’t have proof.