Talk:Legality of recording by civilians

Inaccurate source
The source referenced in footnote 7 is not entirely accurate, leading me to wonder whether it should be referenced. Specifically, the "further explication of the relevant law" for West Virginia references a section of the code that does not exist. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Voice Recording" section inaccurate
For example, in Washington State, in-person conversations that don't carry a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., in public) can be recorded.

Reference 10 is specifically about telephone conversations. This can't be generalized to all voice conversations.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.233.201 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Voice Recording" section inaccurate for Nevada
Nevada has differing laws for in-person and electronic conversations. Electronic communication requires all parties to consent. In-person only requires one party.

You can't pay bail if you haven't been charged
The sentence:

He was later released on bail without being charged.

does not make sense!

Gam3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Very American-centric
Just to note that the article almost exclusively covers American law and USA in particular. It mentions European law but that's it. UK law is different. I have no idea about the majority rest of the world. I'm surprised it's rated C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.62.77 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)