Loading...
127 articles · page 1 of 3
Argentina uses one-party consent for recording under Codigo Penal Arts. 153 and 155. Covers Ley Olimpia, civil remedies, police recording rights, and the 2023-2026 data protection reform.
Australia has no single recording law. The federal TIA Act governs phone interception nationwide, while eight states and territories split into three different groups on whether a participant can record their own conversation. Full comparison, penalties, and the 2025 privacy tort.
The ACT prohibits recording a private conversation without consent, but a broad personal-use exception under s.4(3) of the Listening Devices Act 1992 covers most private recording. Penalties, workplace rules, deepfake laws and the Human Rights Act privacy right explained.
Austria is one-party consent to RECORD under StGB Section 120(1), but disclosing a recording needs the speaker's consent under 120(2), and civil law can still reach a participant's secret recording. Updated July 2026.
Bahrain requires all-party consent for recording under Cybercrime Law 60/2014 and the Penal Code. Learn penalties up to BHD 100,000, PDPL rules, and compliance steps.
Bangladesh requires all-party consent for recording. Learn the rules under the Telecommunication Act 2001, Cyber Security Ordinance 2025, Personal Data Protection Ordinance 2025, and penalties.
Belgium is a one-party consent country under Art. 314bis Code pénal. Participant recording is lawful; non-participant recording carries up to 1 year prison. GDPR, voyeurism, and new Criminal Code (Sept 2026) explained.
Botswana has no dedicated recording-consent law. See how the Cybercrime Act, Data Protection Act 2024, and one 2019 court ruling apply instead.
Brazil is a one-party consent country. Any conversation participant may record without notice under STF RE 583937, Art. 10-A Lei 9.296/1996. Criminal penalties, LGPD, NCII, deepfake, and US cross-border rules covered.
Bulgaria's Constitution requires all parties know about a recording. GDPR and Criminal Code (Art. 171 interception, 171a, 339a) add other penalties. Full 2026 guide.
Cameroon is all-party consent. Law 2010/012 Art. 74 criminalizes recording without consent (1-2 yrs, XAF 1-5M). Section 65 covers interception (5-10 yrs). PDPL 2024 adds 10-yr prison risk. Compliance deadline: June 23, 2026.
Canada is a one-party consent country under Criminal Code s.184(2)(a). Learn the rules for phone calls, police recording, PIPEDA, deepfakes, and cross-border calls.
Chile uses one-party consent by Supreme Court rule. Art. 161-A targets third-party intruders, not participants. Penalties up to 5 years. Ley 21.719 effective Dec 2026.
China has no blanket consent rule for recordings. Learn how PIPL, the Civil Code, and criminal law govern audio recording, wiretapping, and privacy in China.
Colombia requires all-party consent to record private communications. Learn penalties under Código Penal Arts. 192-197, the victim exception, police recording rights, Ley 2197/2022 NCII rules, and Ley 2502/2025 AI deepfake law.
Costa Rica is a one-party consent country. A participant may record any conversation without notice. Penalties for third-party interception reach 3 to 6 years under the amended Código Penal. Learn what changed in 2024-2026.
Cote d'Ivoire requires all-party consent to record private words under Penal Code art. 450-1. Scope, penalties, and the consent-presumption rule explained.
Croatia requires all-party consent under Criminal Code Art. 143. Violations carry up to 5 years prison; AZOP imposed EUR 4.5M GDPR fine in 2025. Know the rules.
Cyprus requires all-party consent to record private conversations under Law 92(I)/1996 and Criminal Code Cap. 154 s. 138. Penalties, GDPR rules, police recording, deepfakes, and TRNC explained.
Czech Republic is one-party consent under Civil Code § 88. Learn criminal penalties, GDPR obligations, the new § 191a deepfake law (Jan 2026), and workplace rules.
Denmark is a one-party consent country under Straffeloven § 263. Learn the rules for phone calls, workplaces, GDPR, police recording, and Denmark's landmark pending deepfake copyright bill (expected July 2026).
Ecuador follows one-party consent under COIP Art. 178. Covers penalties, NCII, workplace rules, the 2025 Intelligence Law, and the LOPDP data protection authority.
Egypt requires all-party consent to record calls or conversations. Penal Code Art. 309(bis), PDPL 2025 rules, CPC reforms effective October 2026, and journalism restrictions.
Estonia uses a de facto one-party consent framework under the Penal Code. Participant recording is permitted, but GDPR requires a lawful basis. Penalties up to EUR 20M for violations.
Ethiopia has no statute on recording your own conversation. See what the Constitution, Criminal Code art. 606, and the Computer Crime Proclamation actually say.
No single EU recording law exists. Each member state sets its own criminal consent rules. GDPR, the EU AI Act, and Directive 2024/1385 apply on top. Full country table, police-recording rights, deepfake obligations, and links to all 25 EU country spokes.
Finland is a one-party consent country under Criminal Code Ch. 24. Learn Finnish recording rules, GDPR obligations, NCII law, AI Act deepfake rules, and criminal penalties.
France requires all-party consent to record under Article 226-1. Penalties reach 1 year / €45,000. Covers phone calls, police, deepfakes, GDPR, and workplace rules.
Germany requires all-party consent to record conversations under StGB §201. Penalties up to 3 years. GDPR, EU AI Act deepfake rules, and more — updated May 2026.
Ghana requires mutual consent to record calls and conversations under the 1992 Constitution. Learn about the Cubagee ruling, penalties up to 10 years, and exceptions.
Greece enforces all-party consent under Penal Code Art. 370A with up to 10 years imprisonment. Covers Art. 346 NCII, Civil Code Arts. 57-59, GDPR/HDPA, and the 2026 Predator convictions.
South Australia's Surveillance Devices Act 2016 regulates security camera video under s.5 and audio under s.4 separately. Most consumer CCTV records sound, which is judged under the stricter listening-device rule.
Tasmania has no general optical surveillance statute, so a security camera's video is largely unregulated. Its audio is governed by the Listening Devices Act 1991 s.5, the real trap for CCTV owners.
The ACT has no general optical surveillance statute, so a security camera's video is largely unregulated outside a narrow voyeurism offence. Its audio is governed by the Listening Devices Act 1992 s.4.
The Northern Territory regulates both video (s.12) and audio (s.11) of a security camera under the Surveillance Devices Act 2007. A camera capturing a bystander's private conversation is the trap the participant rule doesn't cover.
Western Australia's Surveillance Devices Act 1998 regulates security camera video under s.6 and audio under s.5 separately. Most consumer CCTV records sound, which is judged under the stricter listening-device rule.
Hong Kong is a de facto one-party consent jurisdiction. Learn how ICSO Cap. 589, PDPO, NSL 2020, SNSO 2024, and voyeurism offences apply to recording in 2026.
Hungary is one-party consent under criminal law; Civil Code Art. 2:48 sets a separate civil consent rule. Learn Btk. § 422 penalties, Civil Code Art. 2:48, GDPR/NAIH fines, and 2025 AI Act rules.
Iceland follows one-party consent for participant recordings under Art. 228. GDPR via EEA, Art. 199a NCII and deepfake rules, penalties up to 4 years.
India follows one-party consent for recording. Learn how the Telecommunications Act 2023, DPDPA 2023, BNS 2023, IT Act, and Supreme Court rulings shape your rights.
Indonesia's participant recording consent status is legally contested. KUHP Article 258 (Jan 2026) prohibits interception without a clear participant exception. Full guide with Baiq Nuril case analysis.
Iran's private recording law is unclear, not a confirmed all-party rule. Islamic Penal Code Article 582 applies only to officials. Learn what's actually verified, the practical risks, and the state surveillance overlay.
Iraq has no dedicated recording-consent statute. Penal Code defamation and insult articles, plus a separate Kurdistan filming law, fill the gap instead.
Complete guide to Ireland recording laws: one-party consent under section 98 of the 1983 Act as amended in 1993, GDPR/DPA 2018 obligations, home CCTV rules, Garda recording rights, workplace rules, NCII offences, deepfake bills, and 2025-2026 changes.
Learn how Israel's Secret Monitoring Law and Protection of Privacy Law interact on recording consent, what Amendment 13 changed, and penalties up to 5 years.
Italy allows participant recording under one-party consent rules. Learn Art. 615-bis, 617, 612-ter, the 2025 AI deepfake law, GDPR duties, and civil penalties.
Japan follows one-party consent: participants can record calls and meetings without notice. Learn the Penal Code basis, APPI rules, workplace rights, and 2025-2026 deepfake reforms.
Jordan requires all-party consent for recording. Cybercrime Law 17/2023 Article 7, Penal Code 384, PDPL 24/2023 -- penalties, press freedom impact, and compliance rules.
Kenya has no one-party consent statute. Learn how the CMCA 2018, Data Protection Act 2019, and Constitution govern recording in Kenya, with real ODPC enforcement cases and the 2026 BAKE ruling.
Kuwait enforces all-party consent for all recordings under Law 9/2001, Cybercrime Law 63/2015 and CITRA DPPR 2024. Penalties reach 3 years + KWD 20,000. Full guide.
Latvia follows one-party consent: participants may record calls without notice. Learn Criminal Law §§ 144-146, DVI enforcement, the 2024 deepfake law, and EU AI Act obligations.
Lebanon has no statute that squarely governs recording your own conversation. See what Penal Code Articles 579 to 581 and the 1999 interception law actually cover.
Lithuania is one-party for recording under Criminal Code Arts. 165-168, but publishing it or using it at work triggers separate Civil Code and GDPR duties.
Luxembourg requires all-party consent to record calls and conversations. Code penal, Act of 1982, Act of 2005, GDPR, and the EU AI Act all apply. Penalties up to 3 years and 20M EUR GDPR fines.
Malaysia requires all-party consent for recording calls and private conversations under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Section 234. Fines up to RM50,000.
Malta has no all-party consent law. See what S.L. 586.01, the Data Protection Act, and Criminal Code art. 208E actually require for recording in Malta.
Mexico follows one-party consent for recording: participants may record their own calls and conversations. Third-party interception requires a federal judicial order. Penalties reach 12 years in prison.
Morocco requires all-party consent to record conversations. Learn about Penal Code penalties, Law 09-08, CNDP enforcement, and workplace rules.
Mozambique requires all-party consent to record conversations under the Penal Code (Lei 24/2019). New Cybercrime and Cybersecurity Acts passed April 2026. Learn the rules, penalties, and press freedom risks.
Myanmar has no recording-consent law. See the state's warrant-free interception powers and the real risk: what happens after you share a recording.