127 articles · page 2 of 3
Nepal requires all-party consent to record conversations under Penal Code Section 293. Violations carry up to 2 years imprisonment. Learn how the 2025 IT Act changes digital recording rules.
Netherlands allows one-party consent recording under Art. 139a-b Wetboek van Strafrecht. Learn penalties, GDPR rules, and workplace rights.
NSW prohibits recording a private conversation without consent, but a broad personal-use exception under s.7(3)(b) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 covers most private recording. Penalties reach $33,000 or 5 years imprisonment.
New Zealand uses one-party consent under Crimes Act s.216B. Full guide: Privacy Act 2020, intimate visual recording, Deepfake Bill 2025, workplace rules, and penalties up to 3 years.
Nigeria has no statute barring participant recording, but no confirmed case law establishes a one-party consent rule either. Learn what the Cybercrimes Act, NDPA, and Constitution actually say, and how penalties and admissibility work.
The NT's Surveillance Devices Act 2007 only prohibits recording a private conversation you are not part of, so a participant is outside the offence. Penalties, publication rules, and intimate image offences under primary-source verified law.
Norway follows one-party consent under Straffeloven § 205. GDPR via EEA, workplace rules, NCII law § 267a, and AI Act status — updated 2026.
Oman requires all-party consent to record. Cybercrime Law Art. 16 sets 1-3 year prison terms; the PDPL is fully enforceable since February 2026. Learn what is and is not allowed.
Pakistan requires all-party consent to record calls and conversations under PECA 2016 and a landmark March 2026 Supreme Court ruling. Learn penalties, PECA 2025 changes, and workplace rules.
Panama requires all-party consent to record private conversations under Constitution Art. 29 and Código Penal Art. 165. Penalties up to 2-4 years. Ley 478 (2025) adds NCII offense. Full compliance guide.
Paraguay requires all-party consent to record private conversations. Codigo Penal Art. 144 carries up to 2 years prison. Learn penalties, police recording rules, and Ley 7593/2025 compliance.
Peru is a one-party consent country for recordings. Learn the rules under Codigo Penal Art. 154-A, 161, 162, Ley 29733, and Ley 32314 AI deepfake amendments. Penalties reach 15 years for illegal interception.
Philippines is an all-party consent country under RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law). Even a call participant who secretly records violates the law — up to 6 years in prison. Learn the rules for phone calls, workplaces, police, and cross-border recordings.
Poland uses a participant rule for recording: you may record any conversation you take part in. Art. 267 KK, GDPR, EU AI Act, and 2024 deepfake legislation explained.
Portugal is an all-party consent country. Article 199 Código Penal criminalizes unauthorized recording. Updated 2025: Article 192-194, GDPR, EU AI Act, deepfake law, CNPD enforcement.
Qatar enforces all-party consent for all recordings. Penal Code Art. 333, Cybercrime Law Art. 8(bis), PDPL Law 13/2016, QFC regime, and 2025 penalties explained.
Queensland's Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 only prohibits recording a private conversation you are not part of, so a participant is outside the offence. No general video law exists. Penalties, publishing rules, and the 2025 federal tort explained.
South Australia has no dedicated workplace surveillance Act. Recording a colleague or manager is governed by the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) s.4, the Fair Work Act, and the federal employee-records exemption.
Tasmania has no dedicated workplace surveillance Act. Recording a colleague or manager is governed by the Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas) s.5, the Fair Work Act, and the federal employee-records exemption.
The ACT's Workplace Privacy Act 2011 requires 14 days notice before optical, tracking or data surveillance at work and a Magistrates Court authority for covert surveillance. Workplace audio stays under the Listening Devices Act 1992.
The Northern Territory has no dedicated workplace surveillance Act. Because a participant is outside the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT) s.11 entirely, employees may generally record their own workplace conversations freely.
Western Australia has no dedicated workplace surveillance Act. Recording a colleague or manager is governed by the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) s.5, the Fair Work Act, and the federal employee-records exemption.
When you can record your own phone call in New South Wales under the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, how the federal interception law fits in, and the separate risk of sharing a recorded call.
Why recording your own phone call is outside Queensland's listening device offence entirely, how the federal interception law fits in, and the separate risk of publishing a call.
Recording your own phone call in South Australia needs consent, a lawful interest, or the public-interest exception under the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 s.4. Federal interception law rarely applies to your own call.
Recording your own phone call in Tasmania is governed by the Listening Devices Act 1991 s.5, not federal wiretapping law. A broad personal-use exception covers most private recording that is never shared.
Recording your own phone call in the ACT is governed by the Listening Devices Act 1992 s.4, not federal wiretapping law. Section 5 separately restricts sharing a recorded call, even a lawful one.
Recording your own phone call in the Northern Territory is generally lawful. The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 s.11 only catches recording a call you are not part of; publishing it afterward is separately restricted.
Why recording your own phone call is outside Victoria's surveillance offence entirely, how the federal interception law fits in, and the separate risk of publishing a recorded call.
Recording your own phone call in Western Australia needs consent or a lawful-interests justification under the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 s.5. Federal interception law rarely applies to your own call.
Romania leans all-party: Penal Code Art. 226 requires a legitimate interest to record your own conversation. Covers Art. 226, Art. 302, GDPR, workplace rules.
Russia is a one-party consent jurisdiction: recording your own conversation is not a crime under Criminal Code Articles 137-138. Learn what the 2016 Supreme Court ruling actually held, SORM surveillance, wartime censorship laws (Art. 207.3), and penalties up to 15 years.
Rwanda requires all-party consent for recording. Law 60/2013, Penal Code 68/2018, and Law 60/2018 criminalize unauthorized interception. Penalties: 1-5 years. NCSA enforces data protection.
Saudi Arabia requires all-party consent to record under the Anti-Cybercrime Law (Art. 3): up to 1 year prison and SAR 500,000 fine. PDPL fully enforced since Sept 2024. Updated May 2026.
How the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) treats home security cameras: the s 8 trespass test for video, and why the camera's microphone is judged by a completely different rule.
Queensland has no video surveillance law at all, so a home security camera's footage sits almost entirely outside the Invasion of Privacy Act. The microphone is a different story.
How the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) treats home security cameras: the s 7 private-activity test for video, and why the microphone is judged separately under s 6.
Senegal is an all-party consent country. Recording any private conversation without every participant's consent violates Penal Code Art. 363 bis. Penalties reach 7 years. Learn the full framework.
Singapore recording laws: no wiretap statute, so a participant may record their own conversation, plus PDPA duties, voyeurism penalties and evidence rules.
Slovakia requires consent to record under Civil Code s.12(1). Recording without consent, then disclosing it, is a crime under Criminal Code s.377, up to 5 years.
Slovenia allows one-party consent to record conversations, but recording to misuse a confidential statement is a crime under Criminal Code Art. 137(2). Learn the penalties, GDPR rules, and workplace recording laws.
South Africa is one party consent under RICA. See sections 4 to 6, the R2 million/10 year penalty, the POPIA overlay, and the 2026 AmaBhungane reform update.
South Australia requires consent, a lawful-interests justification, or a public-interest justification to record a private conversation under the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 s.4. There is no personal-use exception.
South Korea is a one-party consent jurisdiction under the PCSA. Learn the rules, Supreme Court precedents, 2024 deepfake amendments, and PIPA compliance requirements.
Spain is a one-party consent country per STC 114/1984. Learn Codigo Penal Art. 197 penalties, LOPDGDD/GDPR rules, police recording rights, and new deepfake laws.
Sri Lanka has no statute on recording your own conversation. Telecom Act ss.52-54 and 59(3) and Computer Crime Act s.8 all target a non-party interceptor.
Sweden permits one-party consent recording under Brottsbalken Ch. 4 §9a. Full guide: GDPR, Dataskyddslagen, workplace rules, voyeurism, deepfake, AI Act, and penalties.
Switzerland requires all-party consent under StGB Art. 179bis and 179ter. Recording without permission carries up to 3 years in prison. Covers revFADP, Art. 197a NCII, deepfakes, and police filming rules.
Taiwan is one-party consent under CSSA Article 29. Learn Criminal Code Articles 315-1/315-2, Supreme Court cases, PDPC 2025, deepfake laws, and penalties.
Tanzania recording laws explained. EPOCA 2010 and Cybercrimes Act 2015 prohibit unauthorized interception with fines from TZS 5M and 12+ months prison.
Tasmania prohibits recording a private conversation without consent, but a broad personal-use exception under s.5(3) of the Listening Devices Act 1991 covers most private recording. Audio only; no optical surveillance statute. Penalties and exceptions explained.
Thailand is a one-party consent country in practice. Learn how the PDPA, Criminal Code Sections 322-325, Computer Crime Act, and Section 112 govern recording, penalties, and evidence rules.
Tunisia requires all-party consent for recording. Law 2004-63, Penal Code secrecy provisions, and Decree-Law 2022-54 create overlapping liability. Penalties reach 10 years prison.
Turkey is an all-party consent country. TCK Articles 132-136 impose up to 5 years prison for secret recordings. Learn penalties, the Yargıtay self-defense exception, KVKK fines, and 2025 cross-border transfer rules.
UAE recording laws require all-party consent. Federal Decree-Law 34/2021 Article 44 penalties include 6+ months jail and AED 150K-500K fines.
Uganda requires one-party consent to record phone and radio calls under RICA 2010, but a 2026 court ruling voided the statute covering in-person recording.
UK recording laws explained: one-party consent under RIPA 2000, IPA 2016, UK GDPR obligations, workplace rules, voyeurism offences, and 2025 deepfake law updates.
Ukraine has no one-party statute, but Art. 163's text and Supreme Court rulings support recording your own calls. Up to 7 yrs for interception; martial law up to 12 yrs.
Uruguay follows one-party consent for recording. Código Penal Arts. 296-300, Ley 20327 cybercrime updates, Ley 18.331 data protection, URCDP workplace rules, and EU adequacy decision explained.
Venezuela is a one-party consent country: participants may record their own conversations under the 1991 Ley sobre Protección a la Privacidad de las Comunicaciones. Third-party interception carries 3 to 6 years imprisonment.