A man in Pennsylvania has been charged with a felony for wiretapping, after using a video camera to record a police officer during a traffic stop. As it turns out, state law “bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone’s oral conversation without their consent.”

What I find interesting about the article is that everyone seems to agree charging him with a felony isn’t the proper response in this case, but no one mentioned the fact the law itself seems fundamentally flawed. Not being able to record public officials in their duties is a problem, not to mention the number of violations that could be happening every day from tourists. (“Hey, look, Amish! Let me get the camera!”) How do they define intention? A recording of a party is intentional, as is the recording of guests’ voices, but it sounds almost like you would need to get permission from each person if it’s possible to construe that as eavesdropping.

Link courtesy of Scripting News.