Re: Scilon assaults Seattle Anonymous Member AnonyFag covered it pretty well, but I'll just add that I should have mentioned that I was referring to non-overt recording, not all recording. You don't even have to be hiding the camera for those laws to apply to you, but if you're not making the camera obvious, and it's recording audio, it does fall under wiretapping laws. Like I said, it's stupid. Really, really goddamn stupid. From what I understand, it was worded a certain way so that you can record a conversation if you give notice ("For quality assurance, this call may be recorded", or the "You are being recorded" beeps which should be fairly familiar), but if you record the audio without notice it was wiretapping. Then, some douchebag used that wording and claimed that somebody who had hidden an audio recorder to tape an incriminating conversation was 'wiretapping', and the (Federal Circuit or SCOTUS, I can't remember) judge agreed, and thus it's precedence. While, on the one hand, I appreciate the 4th amendment protections this interpretation provides, on the other I think it's overly vague and abusable.