Conference 7.286::digital

    I have never seen any rules at all about it.  As far as the legalities
    go, if everybody knows about it, I don't think there is a legal issue;
    only if it is secret to some might there be a problem.
    
    Politeness, on the other hand, suggests that the chair might ask first.

    Again, I agree it's an issue of basic good manners.  The chairman
    should let everyone know the meeting is being recorded....and if one
    person objects, then it shouldn't happen.
    
    Same rules used to apply to smoking in meetings until we wised up.
    

    	I find it interesting that it is somehow ok to make sound recordings
    within DEC facilities, but it is not ok to make visual recordings.  For
    example, one cannot bring a camera into a DEC facility without a camera
    pass, but tape recorders are apparently no problem.

    				   -davo

    It's a rathole but I remember reading that in some states it is legal
    to made a video recording without consent but not an audio recording. 
    Seems the law outlawing such audio recordings was written before video
    cameras became wide spread.
    
                                        August G. Reinig

    What about video recordings with a sound track?

    You're right .3, an interesting point.  Of course the camera
    restriction goes back a long way when there might actually have
    been something worth taking a picture of....like the new KL10.
    
    Apparently now, there is no restriction on somebody recording an
    entire strategy planning session.

    C'mon, there's a lot to be said for recording meetings. How many times
    have minutes been in dispute? People can't argue with recordings!
    
    	- andy 

    RE: video w/o sound
    
    5 years ago I asked my Obstetrician if my husband could video
    tape the birth of our son.  She said that the hospital where
    delivery was going to take place, would allow video to be
    shot as long as there was no sound.  
    
    As far as I could tell, it would have been difficult to use
    our camera without sound. I assumed at the time that the policy
    was their way of saying "no" without actually saying it. Now
    previous replies make me think that audio was/is thought of as
    a liablity but video was/is not.  
    
    I friend of mine owns a company that videotapes childbirths and
    she claims that our hospital was the only one that she knew
    of that denied video access.
    

    Quite apart from legality or politeness in recording meetings, anyone
    doing so should be aware that the character of the meeting itself is
    bound to be affected (this might, however, be one of the purposes).
    
    Mauritz
    

    And what if someone refuses to attend?  Who should back off, the one
    who wants to record the meeting or the one who doesn;t want to be
    recorded?  
    
    Is this opening the door to a "big brother" scenario where speakers
    (and maybe cameras) are placed in all conference rooms... of course, to 
    assist  meeting coordinators if they should opt to record the meeting.
    
    In meeting that I've attended, not everything being said is necessarily 
    work related.  Usually around the 40 minute mark, a strategically placed 
    sarcastic remark, pun or joke finds it's way to the floor and serves to
    lighten things up enough to continue on efficiently.  I fear this facet
    of the meetings would be curtailed or eliminated if there was a
    recorder there.
    
    Ferther...
    
    I don't like the idea of allowing recording of a meeting if it is
    unanimously agreed upon.  A "YES" states a DESIRE to have your
    contributions recorded.  A "NO" states a DESIRE not to (often
    interpretted as a "fear" of documenting something you might say or do
    ... OR... an imature "fear" of public speaking). An "I don't care" 
    defaults to "YES". 
    
    Admittedly, recording a lecture or formal presentation is a different
    case where others might benefit from the information being presented.
    But the fact that these presentations will be recorded should be
    declared at the time of their announcement.
    
    Dave

>>    Is this opening the door to a "big brother" scenario where speakers
    
    woooops, should have said "microphones" instead.
    
    
    Who has the time to relisten to a 1 hour meeting anyway?  If something
    important is said, I usually record it in my notebook, where a one hour
    meeting usually gets reduced down to less than half a page of notes (on
    average).  
    
    The only other acceptable reason I can think of for recording is if an
    attendee is visually handicapped and needs to take notes with a
    recorder.

>    Quite apart from legality or politeness in recording meetings, anyone
>    doing so should be aware that the character of the meeting itself is
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    bound to be affected (this might, however, be one of the purposes).
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
>    Mauritz
    
    
    Your quite right, this is known as the Hawthorne Effect. The name comes
    from a study done at the Hawthorne, Chicago plant of Western Electric
    Co. in the 1920's.
    
    The purpose of the test was to see if various types of changes in the 
    environment would improve worker productivity. The surprising result
    was that worker productivity improved whether conditions were made
    better or worse. The conclusion drawn was that worker productivity
    improved because they knew they were being watched. (parts excerpted)
    
    I think it's safer to concluded that people will behave differently,
    not necessarily better or worse, when they know their being observed.
    In the case of video taping, they know they will be obsereved at some
    point.

In one of the few cases where I was wrong, I claimed that recording
conversations was legal as long as one party to the conversation knew
that the recording was taking place.

A person with more knowledge of the Massachusetts legal system found
a fairly recent court case which held that Massachusetts law prohibits
recording of conversations unless every party knows it's being recorded.

Note that we're talking about "knowledge", not "consent."

/john

    Does .-1 apply to all conversations or just telephone conversations?

The case in question involved someone who had carried a concealed tape
recorder on his person when talking to someone.

The court ruled that this was against the law in Massachusetts.

This is different than the case in .0 -- I think .0 tells us that everyone
knows the meeting is being recorded.

But there were replies that claimed (as I had previously believed) that
only one party to a conversation need even know it is being taped.  This
is true under Federal Law (and thus applies to INTERSTATE telephone calls
even if one end is in Massachusetts), but appears to not be true under
Massachusetts law.

The answer to .0's question can probably only be obtained by consulting a
lawyer, who will at best give an opinion, unless a specific case that is
substantially identical to the situation in .0, or a specific law dealing
with recording of private meetings with knowledge but without consent can
be found.

/john

    Concerning carrying a concealed tape recorder, in the case mentioned,
    was the purpose to which the tape might be put a factor in the opinion? 
    For example, if I chose to walk around with a voice-activated tape
    recorder all day, am I breaking a law?  What if I did nothing more with
    that tape than use it for my own amusement or to explain what I did at
    work that day?  Needless to say, I'm not and don't plan to, but I am
    interested.  

If you do ever have to tape a meeting, you'll find that transcribing it and/or
listening to it later will be much easier if you tape it in stereo.  You don't
have to do any fancy engineering, but if you use two mikes a few feet apart you
stand a much better chance of being able to follow the meeting.  With
any tape you lose all the body language and expressiveness; but with a mono 
tape you lose all the spatial cues as well.

RE: last few

Someone mentioned knowledge vs. consent of a voice recording.   

If you have knowledge that a voice recording is taking place, and 
(even grudgingly) continue to speak, in the eyes of the law you have 
probably just "consented" to the recording.   Note that when you call 
the local P.D., they say: "xxxx Police, you are being recorded..."
You don't have to verbally give them permission, you have a choice: 
speak or hang up the phone.   FWIW.

    I really don't understand the issue here. This just seems like paranoia
    to me. I've been in meetings that have been recorded on audio and on
    video (with audio) whilst working for DEC in the US and it never even
    occurred to me that this could be a problem.
    
    	- andy

    re .20, Andy
    
    I believe there are several issues here. From my own experience (also
    .13 comment on "Hawthorne Effect", which I was not aware of), the one I
    wished to accentuate was the "pragmatic" one, as opposed to the legal
    or moral issues. My reference to BB was not intended as an Orwellian
    warning, but rather as an indication that people will act differently
    with and without a recording device present.
    
    I recall a very specific case (pre DEC; I had my own consulting company
    at the time) where a consulting engineer (not of my company) was called
    into a meeting to render his opinions on a fairly large project that
    had not gone all that well. The conversations were now being recorded.
    He managed to render very different views (in some cases opposite) from
    views that he had JUST rendered in meetings on the same topic, but
    where there had been no recording (some additional people present in
    the "recorded" meeting, also). Which opinion was his true opinion?
    
    In this particular case, I believe that the recording had a very
    positive effect (though also here, the official reason was to make
    recording easier; it was even typed up). It gave a sort of "put your
    money where your mouth is" kind of signal to the participants. Of
    course, it completely discredited the engineer in question, as his
    earlier "expert" opinions had been referred about enough so that they
    were known.
    
    Again, my point is not for or against recording. It is merely: What do
    you want to achieve in that particular meeting? Anyone could name
    dozens of instances where you DON'T want the kind of "tied to the
    table" atmosphere, where the meetings might have quite other purposes.
    
    Mauritz
    

    Oh, you mean that people may be afraid to LIE afterwards when there
    will be incontravertible evidence as to what they said/did in a
    meeting, or even if they were there? Sure.
    
    Sounds like a GREAT reason to have recordings made.
    
    	- andy

I have no problems with what I say being recorded by a stenographer or someone
taking notes.  But, put me in a room with a tape recorder, and you're not going
to hear me say a word.  Put me in a room with a videotape machine, and I'm 
not staying in the room.

Obviously, it's the choice of the person calling the meeting whether or not they
want my participation.  (I make this very clear to anyone I have business with.)

Naturally, upon learning this, people find that brining a tape recorder into
the room is a wonderful way to keep me out of their hair. :-)

    Help me understand the problem here, please. A stenographer is okay,
    but not taping?
    
    That seems not at all logical.
    
    	- andy

I have no problems with my words being recorded.  I have a problem with ME being
recorded.  No one has any business stealing that part of me without my
permission, and I don't even give it to my family.

Call it a religious thing.  I don't necessarily expect you to understand my
beliefs, but I would ask you to respect them.

(Despite the terse wording, this is not a flame, and was not typed under the
influence of a flaming state of mind.)

    OK, but I'd submit that this is a minority opinion, which would be
    respected, hopefully. 
    
    In other than religious matters, I wouldn't see a problem for most
    people. 

    Well, it's a bit of a problem for me, although I try to suppress it.

    I too am willing for my words to be written down, but I would prefer
    that I not be recorded or videotaped.  Partly, it's question of who the
    final audience will be.  For example, many people don't *write*
    VAXnotes because they don't know who all the readers will be.
    Obviously, the people writing in here don't feel this way very
    strongly.

    So don't knock the feeling, or diminish the number of people who hold
    it, just because you have no inclinations in that direction.

    I can recount many brainstorming type meetings where I and others
    would shoot ideas out just to see if they can be built upon or have
    merit.  Some of these ideas are outlandish and may even seem ridiculous
    at first, but that's what brainstorming is about and sometimes they
    initiate a train of thought that can ultimately result in a good 
    solution to a problem.  
    
    If there were a tape recorder there, I think you'd see a drastic
    reduction in the free flow of ideas in such meetings.  A foolish idea
    might be chuckled at between friends for about 5 seconds, then forgotten, 
    but the idea might never be expressed if there was a danger of it
    returning to haunt you at some later time.  This is more a matter of 
    human nature and not religion or preference.
    
    As hard as it may be to believe, some suffer from varying degrees of 
    stage fright (if you will) and will reflexively clam up when the recorder 
    is running, effectively excluding them from participaring in the
    meeting.  Call it a handicap if you want. If the agenda is to assign 
    tasks and responsibilities or develop work methods, a more aggressive, 
    less inhibited attendee might use the recorder as a means to suppress 
    input from others leaving his/her ideas to prevail.  Lawyers play this 
    game all the time in court when they get a timid witness on the stand
    who's more worried about what the stenographer is typing and what it
    will sound like later than simply conducting a dialogue with the
    lawyer. 
    
    Dave
    
    

    re: .27 I very conciously did not "knock" anyone who doesn't wish to be
    recorded, just said that I thought such an attitude would be a
    minority.
    
    As to brainstorming meetings, sure, I agree that recording those would
    be a waste of time. But unit/group meetings, presnetations, customer
    meetings could all benefit from knowing *exactly* what was said....
    
    	- andy

re .29

   >But unit/group meetings, presnetations, customer
   >meetings could all benefit from knowing *exactly* what was said....
    
Only if the person saying it was both thoughtful and articulate.  

In my grumpy old age, I have come to believe that most of us (myself
included) are too quick on the tongue and not very clear when we speak.  

I have experimented with taping some meetings with the permission of those
involved.  After a few minutes many lose their self-consciousness, so I
don't think that taping really suppesses a lot of people.   

But... when I play them back, the memories they stir up are very thin.  I
can almost tell who was talking and sometimes I even know what was said.
Why it was said and what was meant is another story.  I never gave the tape
to a secretary to transcribe precisely because it wouldn't have made any
sense at all.

fwiw,

Dick

"A long time ago, in a company far, far, away" someone was being harassed
by his/her supervisor and surreptitiously taped one such encounter.  Later,
during a pre-trial conference, his/her lawyer mentioned "documentary
evidence" to the company's lawyer, who was thereby much more amenable to
a satisfactory settlement.  The person in question was quite willing
to be tried on a charge of concealed recording, believing that it was
unlikely that a jury would convict him/her after hearing the tape.

Martin.
ps: Hi Mauritz, long time no see.

    Why tape?
    
    If the meeting is educational (I'm teaching, presenting, etc.), then
    there's no problem.
    
    But I attend many meetings where we confront allocations of time,
    money, and equipment, where we discuss people or groups that have made
    poor decisions, misled us, etc.  Taping such meetings and candor at
    them are just incompatible.  We have enough problems now with
    inhibiting electronic communication.

	I've got to agree with a couple of the other folks in here to some
extent.  I'm presenting at DECUS, know I will be taped, and that's fine.  I
have taught in front of a video camera, and that was fine.  I have 'acted'
in video being shot for cable TV and that was fine.

	I do not encourage audio or visual taping of me when I am not
prepared to perform.  So much, in fact, that I have been known to go out of
my way at weddings to avoid the damn video camera.  I certainly wouldn't be
happy walking into a meeting and being told it was going to be taped.  My
actual reaction (leave, request the meeting not be taped, stay but remain
silent) would depend a lot on how I felt about the contents of the meeting.

				--Doug

    Just to recapitulate my own opinion (again, looking aside from morality
    and/or legality).
    
    I think the norm should be "non-recorded", for reasons as those
    expressed in .28. This makes for uninhibited and productive
    communication.
    
    However, there are times when you may have a specific motivation or
    purpose for recording. Either, as in the case I mentioned earlier,
    where you want someone to "put her/his money where their mouth is" or
    (as Martin mentioned in .31) you want to expose something and need
    evidence. For the record, the former case was not QUITE a "lie" that
    had been told earlier (ref .22), but more like unfounded opinions or
    "running off at the mouth", but as an "expert" had done the talking,
    these opinions had aquired a certain aspect of "received wisdom".
    Forcing the enunciator of these opinions to go "on record" made him
    think through his opinions. To be charitable, it may be that when
    opinions were uttered in the first round, he may not have been aware of
    all the consequenses of these opinions, or how others (not having his
    level of expertise) would interpret them. (In this case, there was also
    a slight amount of politicking in the first set of opinions).
    
    The same effect could have been achieve by having the above consultant
    render an opinion in writing.
    
    Mauritz
    
    Tjenare, Martin, Hur m�r du?
    

re .28;

At a former job, brainstorming sessions were the only thing we did tape.  This 
was by mutual consent as we often found that the ridiculous idea we'd kicked
around and forgotten had actually pointed the way to the eventual "correct" 
solution.  Having a tape available allowed us to go back and re-establish 
a train of thought.

On the other hand, decision-making sessions were NEVER taped.  It was generally
felt that the recorder inhibited candor on these occasions due to the need 
to choose words with legalistic care.  The goal was to reach a consensus, not 
argue about exact contractual wording.

-dave