Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in Alaska

Alaska lets you record any conversation you’re part of without telling the other person. The law bars using an eavesdropping device to hear or record an oral conversation unless you have the consent of at least one party to that conversation. Since you’re a party to the conversation, your own consent is enough. This rule applies whether the conversation happens in person, on the phone, or through another method. The statute provides: "A person may not (1) use an eavesdropping device to hear or record all or any part of an oral conversation without the consent of a party to the conversation."

Alaska has no law that carves out homes or private spaces as special places where recording is banned. The one-party rule in AS 42.20.310(a)(1) applies everywhere—inside a customer’s house, at a worksite, or in your own office. The only Alaska statute that touches on covert recording in private spaces is a narrow rule criminalizing covertly viewing or recording another person’s private exposure of genitals, anus, or female breast (AS 11.61.123; confirmed via secondary sources and carrying lower confidence). It does not stop ordinary audio or video recording of conversations or interactions. So if an employee wears smartglasses on the job, the business can record customer interactions inside a customer’s home without extra consent under AS 42.20.310(a)(1), as long as the employee is part of the conversation.

Alaska’s wiretapping law only restricts devices that capture the audio of an oral conversation. The statute defines "oral communication" as "human speech used to communicate information from one party to another" (AS 42.20.390(9)), so silent video falls outside the rule. A silent, video-only wearable recording with no audio captured does not fall within the eavesdropping-device trigger, and the wiretap statute does not apply to it.

No Alaska statute bars recording an on-duty police officer in public, and federal courts in Alaska recognize a First Amendment right to record police performing official duties in public places. Because the wearer is a direct participant in the encounter, their own consent satisfies AS 42.20.310(a)(1)'s one-party consent rule for the audio portion, and no statute addresses video separately. The Ninth Circuit, whose decisions bind Alaska, has held that the First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in official duties in public: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018) ("includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places"). So if an employee encounters police while on the job, recording the encounter is lawful under federal precedent.

Alaska has no dedicated biometric privacy statute and no enacted comprehensive consumer privacy law with a biometric-data provision. The state’s Genetic Privacy chapter covers DNA testing only, not voiceprints or other biometric identifiers. Bills proposing an Illinois-style biometric privacy law have been introduced but have not passed, including HB 72 (30th Legislature, 2017–2018; confirmed dead as of 5/13/2018) and HB 367 (34th Legislature, 2025; remains pending in House Finance Committee as of ~5/12/2026 and not enacted as of 7/22/2026), so none are in force. That means if you use voice capture for training or documentation, you don’t face extra consent or notice requirements beyond the one-party rule already described.

Imagine your employee installs smartglasses before entering a customer’s home to perform appliance repairs. The glasses record video and audio during the visit. Under Alaska law, the employee’s presence in the conversation satisfies AS 42.20.310(a)(1), so the recording is legal. The same applies if the employee encounters police outside the home while leaving the job site—the federal right to record police in public protects the audio and video.

Alaska’s eavesdropping chapter includes specific exemptions for law-enforcement use of recording tools, but none restrict a civilian’s right to record police. AS 42.20.320(a)(6)–(8) authorize peace-officer conduct under AS 12.37, emergency monitoring in barricade/hostage/explosive situations, and peace-officer body-worn transmitters to other officers. These provisions do not limit a civilian’s ability to record on-duty officers in public or otherwise.