sbrower nailed it.

A handy guide to audio laws in all 50 states can be found at: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/. The links on the left of the page have valuable content of the exact state statutes and eavesdropping/wiretapping cases.

Federal law is USC Title 18, Ch 119, Sec 2510-2513.

Big thanks. This is part of the answer I am looking for. When I am dealing with tsa agents or ticket person, I don't want want audio recording unless I consent to. Since I have not see any sign at any airport I go to (very non-flyer here) I do expect audio privacy at checkpoint, especially if I am under questioning.

With this in mind, has anyone encounter or seen airport video with audio? I personally haven't and like to know if there is one. It is very important to know what right I still haven't lost and what tools are being used against me as a citizen.

One more question, what does 'one-party consent' mean? Does that mean if I make a phone call or having a face-to-face communication, the other party can record me as long as they consent to it, even if my consent was never given? On that same note, what if the other party is a tsa agent or someone who has recently been empowered? To me, their consent, especially while on official duty, doesn't mean I consent. Otherwise, they may as well plant a chip in me in addition to ankle and wrist monitor bracelets.

What if I am at a checkpoint and there is no sign indicating that audio recording is in progress, do people still have reasonable expectation of privacy the same way they would have when talking to ticket agents? I would think there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy here considering that people would be without shoes, some of their clothing off, and be subjected to questions and pat-down treatment that ticket agents don't do. As stated before, I surely wouldn't want the whole ideal recorded but it is being recorded on video; however, I would think wire taping is something they can't just bypass as easily. This is why I never see any video from airports, convenient stores, as well as bank with audio but all police dash-cam videos show voice.

Basically, I like to be able to have a leg to stand on and call out violation of wire taping if someone ever wants to use anything against me.

The fact that you are in an airport has nothing to do with it. It is a public place, and if what you are saying can be overheard, it can be recorded.

That is true if there is an expectation of privacy, for example in a phone call from your home or business.

Ths "handy guide" is for phone calls in general, not in a public place. Wiretapping a phone line requires consent (of one or both parties, depending on the state), but recording a conversation that you can hear in a public place does not require consent, because listening to the conversation does not require consent.

For example, on the California page, it says "conversations that occur at any public gathering where one could expect to be overheard...are not covered by the statute. For example, when a television network used a hidden camera to videotape a conversation that took place at a business lunch meeting on a crowded outdoor patio of a public restaurant, the conduct did not violate the Penal Code’s prohibition against eavesdropping because it was not a “confidential communication.”

When it comes to recording by ordinary members of the public unable to operate under the cover of government authority allowances, it is not legal everywhere in the US to surreptetiously record the verbal communications of others.

That something can be overheard by a person does not necessarily mean it can be legally recorded, without the consent of the party being recorded, by the person doing the recording.

At some airports, audio is recorded. For many years (I haven't paid attention recently) there were microphones hung over the x-ray belts at DFW.

It wasn't confidential because it could be overheard with normal hearing (i.e. no parabolic mic or other technology) in a crowded environment where people could hear other conversations without effort. If people were whispering and could not be heard by others with normal hearing, that's a different situation.

As was mentioned earlier, it comes down to an expectation of privacy. If in normal conversation you can be overheard (i.e. crowded restaurant) you don't have an expectation of privacy. If you are whispering, you cannot be overheard and therefore have an expectation that your words are private to the person to whom you are whispering.

Back to the topic at hand, if the TSA (or anyone for that matter) posts signage, videos, or another medium that notifies passengers that video and audio monitoring is conducted, they've removed the expectation of privacy because they've told you that they're listening.

They don't even record video if it implicates one of their guards.

Is it correct to say that no one here knows for sure if airports record sound or not? In other words, unless signs (as in more than one and not located upside down in a tsa's lockerroom) are clearly visible then airports shoudn't be recording audio BUT they might and none of us has a clue what are our rights or lack of them when we are at airport. The same approach would be true to train, bus, taxis, and our own vehicles in the future because the same argument would be use that we have silently and unknowingly consent to wiretapping when we choose to use such luxuries instead of walking 60 miles to work or 2000 miles to see grandpa.

I wonder if an ACLU attorney would know. If they have to think about it then a commoner such as myself should not be expected to know and should resort to common sense of a regular law, which protects me from illegal wiretapping when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. My definition of reasonable expectation of privacy includes situation when I am being subjected to search and seizure and questioning outside of my control I wish to be given an opportunity to either consent or decline being audio-recorded for any reason, one of which is possible self-incriminating for anything outside the scope of tsa's role and responsibility.

For example, if tsa asked me if I rented a vehicle during my trip I have to answer truthfully. If the next question is whether I drove above the speed limit at any point in time, I would have to tell the truth as it is a felony to lie to federal agent. However, I do not consent to being recorded and such recording is used against me at a later time in the area outside the scope of tsa's role and responsibility. In other words, their job is to prevent terrorists from boarding planes so they come up with a list of questions to profile passengers; however, answers that cause no flag regarding terrorism activity can't be used against me.

"At some airports" is as confusing as saying most of them probably do record sound. Whether they have a right to do it and inform us that they are doing it or they are not doing it or doing it illegally (meaning they can't use it in hte court of law unless actual prevention of an imminent and direct attack is prevent right at the moment.)

If it is in a public place, then yes, it does. If it is a private place, then there is an expectation of privacy.

If you're not sure if you've implicitly consented, just say to the questioning TSO "I don't consent to audio recording or monitoring." Now, if you're in a 1 party consent state, that won't do you any good, though you are within your rights to decline to answer BDO questions.

I believe one-party state argument applies to only two or more private parties and not a conversation between a private party and the authority or corporation where no crime is committed. For example, when you or I make a phone call to our bank or some place of business, there will be a recording stating that this called may be recorded. That is a warning and we have the right to continue with the call and that implies we consent to the recording. There is none of that at the airport or bank and I have never seen a bank or airport video with sound.

If they want to record sound, just inform the private citizens verbally and/or in a manner clearly understandable. That is all many of us ask for. Now if we don't know if we're being audio-recorded and the system is setup to do run all day the way video recording is, then there is no way for us to voice objection to it. Just like the video recording, by seeing it and not object to it, we are consenting to being record on video. But we don't see sound and need to be told that we are being monitored. As stated earlier, one little sign hidden somewhere is not enough. If one doesn't see the warning sign, one has a reasonable expectation to believe it doesn't exist. For example, you can smoke at places that don't have "No Smoking Allowed" sign(s) because there is no instruction prohibiting you from smoking.

No, it does not necessarily. Attempt to record a stranger's conversation without their consent at an airport restaurant at a Maryland airport or train station and then upload for public distribution the entirety of the recording on the internet from your home network. Attempt to do the same thing with a hidden recording device under a public park bench and distribute the entirety of the recording by uploading it for public distribution on the internet from your home network. You might then discover how it does not.

The government exempts itself from many laws. The use of "sting" operations is but one example.