Recording Law for Streamers & Creators in Alaska

Alaska lets you record any conversation you take part in. Under AS 42.20.310(a)(1), a person may not 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. That means if you’re in the conversation, you’re allowed to record it, whether you’re on the phone, in person, or talking through another electronic means. The rule applies the same way whether the interaction is in person, by telephone, or by any other means. The only thing the law cares about is whether you’re part of the conversation, not where it takes place.

Alaska’s recording law uses the phrase "oral conversation" to describe what can be recorded. The law defines "oral communication" at AS 42.20.390(9) as "human speech used to communicate information from one party to another." The law does not impose any separate requirement that the conversation be confidential or private, and it covers conversations conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means. For example, if you’re live streaming and someone starts talking to you, you can record their words without asking permission first.

Alaska places no extra limits on where you can record. The statute’s trigger is the consent of a party to the conversation, not the location or public/private character of the setting. The rule is the same whether you’re in a public park, a coffee shop, or someone’s living room. The only exception the law mentions is AS 11.61.123, which criminalizes secretly viewing or recording another person’s private exposure of genitals, anus, or female breast; this statute does not apply to ordinary conversations or live streams.

Alaska has no law against recording on-duty police officers in public. Federal courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places: 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). Because you’re part of the encounter when you record, your own consent satisfies AS 42.20.310(a)(1)'s one-party consent rule for the audio. This means you can legally record police interactions while you’re present, whether you’re live streaming or just filming with your phone.

Alaska’s recording law only regulates devices used to hear or record oral conversation, and the statute defines "eavesdropping device" to cover conversations conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means. A silent, video-only wearable recording with no audio captured does not fall within the "eavesdropping device"/oral-conversation trigger, so the wiretap statute does not apply to it. This is different from recording conversations with audio, which requires your participation as one of the speakers.

Alaska’s eavesdropping statute, AS 42.20.310, makes it a class A misdemeanor to violate its one-party consent rule. The penalty provision, AS 42.20.330, states that a person who violates any of the provisions of AS 42.20.300 or 42.20.310 is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. The law includes specific exemptions for law enforcement conduct at AS 42.20.320(a)(6)-(8), such as peace officer operations under AS 12.37, emergency monitoring in barricade or hostage situations, and peace officers’ use of body-worn transmitters to other officers, but none of these restrict a civilian’s right to record police. The statute defines "oral communication" at AS 42.20.390(9) as "human speech used to communicate information from one party to another" and "private communication" at AS 42.20.390(11) as "an oral, wire, or electronic communication uttered or transmitted by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception," but these definitions apply to separate non-party interception provisions in AS 42.20.300, not the participant-recording rule in AS 42.20.310(a)(1). Alaska Supreme Court case law confirms the eavesdropping provision targets third-party interception, not a participant’s own recording: Palmer v. State, 604 P.2d 1106 (Alaska 1979) (construing the identically-worded predecessor statute AS 11.60.290).

Imagine you’re live streaming a public festival in Anchorage. A crowd gathers around you, and someone starts talking to you about the event. You can record their voice without asking permission because you’re part of the conversation. If a police officer approaches to ask questions, you can keep recording the interaction because Alaska law and federal courts protect your right to do so. If you’re only filming video without audio, you don’t need anyone’s permission at all.

Alaska’s state constitution provides heightened privacy protections in some contexts. In State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 (Alaska 1978), the Alaska Supreme Court held that under Article I, § 22 of the Alaska Constitution, police must obtain a warrant before conducting consensual electronic monitoring through an informant even with one party’s consent. This decision restricts government-conducted surveillance operations, but it does not apply to an ordinary civilian’s own wearable recording of their own encounters. The case shows that Alaska affords broader privacy protection than federal law in the law-enforcement-monitoring context, while leaving the one‑party consent rule for participant recording intact.