united-states privacy
NJ has a 1-party consent, and MA a 2-party consent, for recording conversations. What if MA calls NJ?
<p>I recorded a polling call and forgot to ask the person if it was OK to do so.</p>

<p>Massachusetts, where the company is located, has a two party consent law for recording.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law" rel="nofollow">http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law</a></p>

<p>New Jersey is one party consent.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-jersey/new-jersey-recording-law" rel="nofollow">http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-jersey/new-jersey-recording-law</a></p>

<p>So what the law when the person making the phone call is in Massachusetts, and the recorder/recipient is in New Jersey?</p>

<p>It depends. On what? On how a judge feels on a given day.  </p>

<p>That is to say, we are not sure.  </p>

<p>Conventional wisdom says that we should be cautious and assume that the law of the stricter state will apply. But <a href="https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf" rel="noreferrer">some commentators</a> argue that the law of the state where the recording device is located should apply.</p>

<p>I found this discussion to be the most complete one-stop place for a nice summary. <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/interstate-phone-calls" rel="noreferrer">http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/interstate-phone-calls</a>. I'm going to paste it here because I can and because SE likes that.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Interstate phone calls   Date:  August 1, 2012   In light of the
  differing state laws governing electronic recording of conversations
  between private parties, journalists are advised to err on the side of
  caution when recording or disclosing an interstate telephone call. The
  <strong>safest strategy is to assume that the stricter state law will appl</strong>y.
  For example, a reporter located in the District of Columbia who
  records a telephone conversation without the consent of a party
  located in Maryland would not violate District of Columbia law, but
  could be liable under Maryland law. A <strong>court located in the District of
  Columbia may apply Maryland law</strong>, depending on its “conflict of laws”
  rules. Therefore, an aggrieved party may choose to file suit in either
  jurisdiction, depending on which law is more favorable to the party’s
  claim.   In one case, a New York trial court was asked to apply the
  Pennsylvania wiretap law — which requires consent of all parties — to
  a call placed by a prostitute in Pennsylvania to a man in New York.
  Unlike the Pennsylvania wiretap statute, the New York and federal
  statutes require the consent of only one party. The call was recorded
  with the woman’s consent by reporters for The Globe, a national
  tabloid newspaper. The <strong>court ruled that the law of the state where the
  injury occurred, New York, should apply</strong>. (Krauss v. Globe
  International)   The Supreme Court of California in Kearney v. Salomon
  Smith Barney applied California wiretap law to a company located in
  Georgia that routinely recorded business phone calls with its clients
  in California. California law requires all party consent to record any
  telephone calls, while Georgia law requires only one party consent.
  The state’s high <strong>court, applying choice of law principles, reasoned
  that the failure to apply California law would “impair California’s
  interest in protecting the degree of privacy afforded to California
  residents by California law <em>more severely than</em> the application of
  California law would impair any interests of the State of Georgia</strong>.”<br>
  In another case involving Pennsylvania law, four employees of The
  Times Leader, a newspaper in Wilkes-Barre, were arrested after they
  printed a transcript of a telephone conversation between a columnist
  in Pennsylvania and a murder suspect living in Virginia that was
  recorded without the suspect’s permission. The Virginia and federal
  statutes allow one party to record a conversation, while Pennsylvania,
  as discussed above, requires the consent of all parties. The man asked
  prosecutors to charge the journalists under the Pennsylvania law. The
  court eventually dismissed the charges against the newspaper staff —
  but on the unrelated ground that the suspect had no expectation of
  privacy during his telephone interview with the columnist.
  (Pennsylvania v. Duncan)   Federal law may apply when the conversation
  is between parties who are in different states, although it is
  unsettled whether a court will hold in a given case that federal law
  “pre-empts” state law. In Duncan, the newspaper argued that the
  federal law should pre-empt the state statutes, because the telephone
  call crossed state lines, placing it under federal jurisdiction.
  However, in that case, the court did not address the pre-emption
  issue. Moreover, as noted above, either state may choose to enforce
  its own laws.</p>
</blockquote>
