Massachusetts
Massachusetts Security Camera Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
In Massachusetts, silent security cameras are generally legal on your own property. Cameras that record audio require all-party consent under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, and hidden cameras are barred from private spaces such as restrooms and changing rooms under Section 105.
Massachusetts security camera law hinges on one critical question: does the camera capture audio? Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, a security camera that secretly records conversations is treated the same as a hidden wiretap. The penalty is a felony carrying up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine, with no misdemeanor alternative. Silent security cameras face far fewer restrictions, but they must still comply with privacy laws and cannot be placed in areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This guide covers the rules for home security cameras, business surveillance systems, cameras in common areas, and the legal boundaries that separate lawful monitoring from felony wiretapping.
The Audio vs. Silent Camera Distinction
Why Audio Changes Everything
The Massachusetts wiretap statute targets the secret interception of "wire or oral communications." A security camera that records only video does not capture "oral communications" and therefore falls outside Section 99. The moment a camera's microphone activates and records spoken words, however, the full force of the wiretap statute applies.
This creates two very different legal categories:
| Camera Type | Legal Status | Key Restriction |
|---|---|---|
| Silent video camera | Generally legal | Cannot be placed in private areas (restrooms, changing rooms) |
| Camera with audio | Legal only with full disclosure | All persons whose conversations are captured must know about the recording |
The Secrecy Test
For cameras with audio capability, Massachusetts law asks one question: did all parties know the camera was recording their conversations? If the answer is yes (because of posted signage, verbal disclosure, or obvious equipment), the recording is lawful. If any person's conversation was secretly captured, the camera operator has committed a felony.
Many modern security cameras come with built-in microphones that are enabled by default. Camera owners should check their settings carefully and either disable audio recording or ensure proper disclosure if audio is active.
Home Security Cameras
Your Own Property
Massachusetts homeowners have broad rights to install security cameras on their own property. You can place cameras:
- On your home's exterior (front door, driveway, garage, backyard)
- Inside your own home, in rooms you control
- Pointed at your property boundaries to monitor your own land
Audio Restrictions for Home Cameras
If your home security camera has a microphone and captures conversations, Section 99 applies:
- Indoor cameras with audio are lawful as long as everyone in your household knows about them. Guests should be informed that audio recording is occurring.
- Outdoor cameras with audio that capture conversations on your property should be accompanied by visible signage or verbal disclosure to visitors.
- Cameras pointed at neighboring property present a risk if they capture neighbors' conversations. A camera with audio that picks up your neighbor's porch conversations could violate Section 99 if the neighbor does not know about the recording.
Ring Doorbells and Smart Cameras
Video doorbells (Ring, Nest, Arlo, etc.) and other smart cameras are extremely common. Most of these devices record audio by default. In Massachusetts:
- Visitors who ring the doorbell and see the camera are generally on notice that recording is occurring, satisfying the statute
- Conversations captured incidentally by a doorbell camera (such as neighbors talking on the sidewalk near your door) present more legal risk if those people do not know about the recording
- Two-way audio features on smart cameras are governed by the same rules. If you use the two-way audio to speak with a delivery person, both sides know audio is active, and the statute is satisfied
- Passive audio recording of conversations by people who do not realize the camera has a microphone could trigger Section 99
The safest practice is to post a visible sign near any audio-capable smart camera stating that audio and video recording are in progress.
Recording Nannies and Household Workers
Massachusetts homeowners who use "nanny cams" or other cameras to monitor household workers must follow the wiretap statute:
- Silent cameras are generally lawful. You can install hidden video-only cameras to monitor a caregiver.
- Cameras with audio must not be secret. You must inform the nanny, housekeeper, or other worker that their conversations are being recorded.
- Hidden cameras with audio violate Section 99 and constitute a felony, even if the purpose is to monitor the safety of your child.
This is a point where Massachusetts law is stricter than most states. In many one-party consent states, a homeowner can install a hidden audio-capable nanny cam. In Massachusetts, doing so is a felony.
Business Security Cameras
General Rules for Commercial Properties
Massachusetts businesses can install security camera systems, but must follow these guidelines:
- Post visible signage at entrances and throughout monitored areas indicating that video surveillance is in progress
- Disable audio recording on cameras in areas where employees or customers have conversations, or provide explicit disclosure that audio is being recorded
- Never place cameras in private areas such as restrooms, changing rooms, break rooms with an expectation of privacy, or lactation rooms
- Document surveillance policies in employee handbooks and training materials
Audio on Business Cameras
Business cameras that record audio must comply with Section 99. This means:
- All employees must be informed that audio recording occurs in their work areas
- Customers and visitors must be put on notice through visible signage
- "This area is under audio and video surveillance" signs should be posted at all entrances and in monitored areas
- Simply posting "video surveillance" signs is not sufficient if the cameras also record audio
Businesses that fail to disclose audio recording on security cameras face the same felony penalties as any other Section 99 violation: up to 5 years in state prison and $10,000 in fines, plus civil liability under Section 99 Q.
Retail and Customer-Facing Businesses
Retail stores, restaurants, and other customer-facing businesses should:
- Install cameras in visible locations rather than concealing them
- Use signage that specifically mentions both video and audio if cameras have microphones
- Ensure that camera coverage of fitting rooms, restrooms, or other private areas is physically impossible
- Train employees on the location and capabilities of all cameras
- Review camera settings to confirm whether audio recording is enabled
Cameras in Common Areas and Shared Spaces
Multi-Unit Buildings
Landlords and property managers who install cameras in shared spaces of apartment buildings, condominiums, or other multi-unit properties must:
- Limit cameras to common areas such as lobbies, hallways, parking garages, and building entrances
- Never install cameras inside individual units, on balconies or patios that serve specific units, or in laundry rooms or other areas where tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Post visible signage indicating video surveillance is active
- Disclose audio capability if cameras have microphones enabled
HOA and Condominium Surveillance
Homeowner associations that install security cameras in common areas should:
- Pass a formal vote authorizing the surveillance program
- Notify all residents about camera locations and capabilities
- Post signage at all monitored locations
- Address audio recording explicitly in the authorization
- Comply with the Massachusetts condominium law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183A) regarding common area usage
Hidden Camera Restrictions
The Voyeurism Statute: Section 105
Regardless of whether a camera captures audio, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 makes it a crime to use a hidden camera to:
- Record a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent
- Record in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (restrooms, changing rooms, bedrooms in another person's home)
- Engage in "upskirting" or similar invasive recording
Penalties under Section 105 for an adult victim with no dissemination top out at 2.5 years in a house of correction and a $5,000 fine. When the victim is under 18, the penalty rises to up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine.
Where Hidden Cameras Are Always Illegal
Hidden cameras are always illegal in the following locations, regardless of whether they capture audio:
- Restrooms and bathrooms
- Changing rooms and fitting rooms
- Locker rooms and showers
- Bedrooms (in someone else's home)
- Hotel and motel rooms
- Lactation rooms
- Any space where a person undresses or engages in intimate activity
Penalties for Security Camera Violations
Criminal Penalties
| Offense | Statute | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security camera with secret audio recording | Section 99 | 5 years (state prison) | $10,000 |
| Hidden camera in private area, adult victim | Section 105 | 2.5 years (house of correction) | $5,000 |
| Hidden camera targeting a minor | Section 105 | 5 years (state prison) | $10,000 |
| Disclosure of illegally recorded content | Section 99 | 2 years (house of correction) | $5,000 |
Civil Liability
Victims of illegal security camera recording can pursue:
- Section 99 Q damages: $100 per day of violation or $1,000 minimum, plus attorney fees
- Privacy tort damages: Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B, intrusive surveillance can give rise to invasion of privacy claims
- Tenant remedies: Tenants who discover illegal cameras may have grounds to break their lease and seek damages
More Massachusetts Recording Topics
See Also
- Massachusetts Surveillance Camera Laws covers home, HOA, neighbor, workplace, and landlord camera rules in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Recording Laws by Topic
More Massachusetts Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are security cameras legal in Massachusetts?
Silent video security cameras are generally legal. Cameras that record audio must comply with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, which requires all parties to know about the recording. Hidden cameras with audio that secretly record conversations trigger felony penalties of up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Can I have a Ring doorbell camera in Massachusetts?
Yes. Video doorbells are legal. However, most doorbell cameras record audio by default. Visitors who see the camera and interact with it are generally on notice. For conversations captured incidentally by the microphone, posting a visible sign noting audio recording is the safest practice.
Can my landlord install security cameras in my apartment building?
Landlords can install cameras in common areas like lobbies and hallways with visible signage. They cannot install cameras inside individual units, on unit-specific balconies, or in spaces where tenants have a privacy expectation. Cameras with audio in common areas require additional disclosure.
Can I use a hidden nanny cam with audio in Massachusetts?
No. A hidden camera that records audio violates the Massachusetts wiretap statute and is a felony. You can use a hidden silent video camera to monitor a caregiver, but you must inform the caregiver if the camera has a microphone. The penalty for secret audio recording is up to 5 years in prison.
Do I need to post signs for my security cameras in Massachusetts?
There is no specific state law requiring signage for silent video cameras on your own property. However, posting signs is strongly recommended as a best practice. If your cameras record audio, disclosure to all persons whose conversations may be captured is legally required to avoid felony wiretap charges.
Updates
Corrected the Section 105 hidden-camera penalty: the base adult-victim offense with no dissemination tops out at 2.5 years in a house of correction and $5,000, not 5 years in state prison; the 5-year state-prison tier applies only when the victim is a minor.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272
§ 99Interception of wire and oral communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications.— A. Preamble. The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living. The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 271 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Blood (1987) read Section 99 as generally proscribing secret recording of oral communications without all parties' consent, and suppressed under art. 14 a warrantless police recording made with one party's consent. Commonwealth v. Vitello (1975) held Section 99 substantially complies with federal Title III.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Vitello (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1975, 367 Mass. 224)✓In a gaming prosecution built on wiretapped phone calls, the SJC gave chapter 272 section 99 its first full review and held the state wiretap statute substantially complies with federal Title III and that the warrants issued under it met both standards.
- Commonwealth v. Blood (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1987, 400 Mass. 61)✓Police wired an informant who recorded conversations in private homes about a planned break-in; the SJC held the recordings fell within section 99's one-party-consent exception but that article 14 nonetheless required a warrant, and reversed the convictions.
- Commonwealth v. D'Amour (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1999, 428 Mass. 725)✓The SJC upheld a section 99 wiretap of a widow suspected of arranging her husband's murder for insurance money, holding the district attorney's written designation of an assistant satisfied Vitello and that probable cause supported the organized crime connection.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, Massachusetts Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws, Massachusetts Nursing Home Camera Laws: All-Party Consent Risks
§ 105Photographing, videotaping or electronically surveilling partially nude or nude person or the sexual or other intimate parts of a person around the person's clothing; exceptions; punishmentIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
Section 105. (a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise: ''Electronically surveils'' or ''electronically surveilled'', to view, obtain or record a person's visual image by the use or aid of a camera, cellular or other wireless communication device, computer, television or other electronic device. ''Partially nude'', the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola. ''Sexual or other intimate parts'', human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by clothing or undergarments.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Massachusetts courts have applied section 105 to secret imaging. Commonwealth v. Robertson (2014) held section 105(b) as then written did not reach upskirt photography of fully clothed people, which prompted a 2014 amendment, and Commonwealth v. Wassilie (2019) held the unit of prosecution under paragraph one is each victim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Wassilie (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2019, 482 Mass. 562)✓A man hid a phone in paper towels facing a public unisex toilet and recorded adults and children; the court held the unit of prosecution under section 105(b), first paragraph, is each victim, and that the third paragraph child upskirting language is not unconstitutionally vague.
- Commonwealth v. Robertson (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2014, 467 Mass. 371)✓A man was charged with aiming his phone camera up the skirts of clothed women on an MBTA trolley; the court held section 105(b) reaches only a person nude or partially nude at the time, so the charged upskirting fell outside it, and reversed the denial of his motion to dismiss.
- COMMONWEALTH v. MARKUS COOPER. (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2021, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 345)✓A man pointed a phone camera into a bathroom stall where a woman was urinating, then fled; the court held section 105(b), first paragraph, does not require the Commonwealth to produce the photograph, so the camera sound plus his flight supported the conviction.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Laws on Recording in Public, Massachusetts Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025, Massachusetts Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 214
§ 1BRight of privacyIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
Section 1B. A person shall have a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce such right and in connection therewith to award damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 199 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (2005) held that recovery under c. 214, Section 1B requires a disclosure both unreasonable and either substantial or serious, and that publicity on a matter of public concern falls outside it. Cort v. Bristol-Myers Co. (1982) held an attempted intrusion that obtained no information is not actionable.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Madsen v. Erwin (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1985, 395 Mass. 715)✓A Christian Science Monitor writer fired after her employers questioned her about her sexual orientation sued under Section 1B; the court held the privacy count as pleaded did not survive dismissal but let her replead it, since religion clauses do not immunize tortious conduct.
- Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2005, 443 Mass. 367)✓A physician won a privacy verdict after her institute leaked confidential peer review material about chemotherapy overdoses to a newspaper; the court vacated it, holding disclosures about her professional conduct in a matter of intense public interest fall outside Section 1B.
- Duarte v. Healy (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1989, 405 Mass. 43)✓Cambridge fire fighter recruits had to give monitored urine samples and Duarte was fired after testing positive for cocaine; the court assumed a Privacy Act violation but held the city manager and fire chief immune for discretionary acts, so the Section 1B claims were dismissed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Video Recording Laws, Massachusetts Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws, Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws: Security Rules & Consumer Rights (2026)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 183A § 1 (Definitions)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 - Wiretapping Statute(malegislature.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 - Video Voyeurism(malegislature.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B - Right of Privacy(malegislature.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183A - Condominiums(malegislature.gov).gov
- Massachusetts Law About Employee Privacy(mass.gov).gov