This guide provides a quick reference to the specific provisions of each jurisdiction’s wiretap law. It outlines whether one-party or all-party consent is required to permit recording of a conversation. In some instances, courts have provided further guidance on the law.

This is only a general guide; therefore, it is highly recommended that you review a state’s entire section by clicking on the state name at: http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/state-state-guide

Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping, they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear. Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication. Some states have laws against criminal or tortuous purpose use of recordings, regardless of consent.

At least 24 states have laws outlawing certain uses of hidden cameras in private places. Those laws can also be found on the above website.

One-Party Consent Statutes

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

All-Parties Consent Statutes

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

All-Parties Consent Statutes States:

California – Must have consent of all parties to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication. Conversations that occur at any public gathering where one could expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the statute.

Connecticut - It is illegal to tape a telephone conversation in Connecticut without the consent of all parties. Consent should be given prior to the recording, and should either be in writing or recorded verbally, or a warning that the conversation is being taped should be recorded. However, re-recording an illegally taped conversation by a third party may not violate the statute.

Florida - All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an “electronic, mechanical or other device” are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law.

Illinois - An eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. Standard radio scanners are not eavesdropping devices, according to a 1990 decision from an intermediate appellate court. In addition, a camera is not an eavesdropping device.

Maryland - it is unlawful to tape record a conversation without the permission of all the parties. State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law.

Massachusetts – It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts.

Michigan- Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication. This interpretation allows a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties.

Montana – A reporter in Montana cannot tape record a conversation without knowledge of all parties to the conversation. Exceptions to this rule include the recording of: elected or appointed officials and public employees, when recording occurs in the performance of public duty; persons speaking at public meetings, and persons given warning of the transcription. If one party gives warning, then either party may record.

Nevada – Consent of all parties is required to tape a conversation in Nevada. Possible exception: If the interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication and an emergency situation exists in which it is impractical to gain a court order before intercepting the communication, an exception may be made. This exception applies mostly to law enforcement officers who proceed without a warrant.

New Hampshire – It is a felony to intercept or disclose the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. However, it is only a misdemeanor if a party to a communication, or anyone who has the consent of only one of the parties, intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication.

Pennsylvania - It is a felony to intercept, or get any other person to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication without the consent of all the parties. Consent is not required of any parties if the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for their non-electronic communication.

Washington – All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face. There are several stipulations to this statute; therefore, it is highly recommended that you read the entire section for this state.

One-Party Consent Statutes States:

Alabama - The eavesdropping statute criminalizes the use of “any device” to overhear or record communications, whether the eavesdropper is present or not, without the consent of at least one party engaged in the communication.

Alaska- It is a misdemeanor in Alaska to use an eavesdropping device to hear or record a conversation without the consent of at least one party to the conversation. The state’s highest court has held that the eavesdropping statute was intended to prohibit only third-party interception of communications and thus does not apply to a participant in a conversation.

Arizona – An individual must have the consent of at least one party to a conversation in order to legally intercept a wire or electronic communication, including wireless and cellular calls. Utilizing a device to overhear a conversation while not present, without the consent of a party to that conversation, is also illegal. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that communication.

Arkansas – Intercepting or recording any wire, oral, cellular or cordless phone conversation is illegal in Arkansas, unless the person recording is a party to the conversation, or one of the parties to the conversation has given prior consent.

Colorado – Recording or intercepting a telephone conversation, or any electronic communication, without the consent of at least one party to the conversation is a felony. Recording a communication from a cordless telephone, however, is a misdemeanor. However, nothing in these statutes “shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event.” Additionally, a person may use wiretapping or eavesdropping devices on his own premises for security or business purposes, if reasonable notice of the use of such devices is given to the public.

Delaware – There is some conflict with regards to whether a party to a conversation can record the communication without the other party’s consent. Delaware’s wiretapping and surveillance law specifically allows an individual to “intercept” any wire, oral or electronic communication to which the individual is a party, or a communication in which at least one of the parties has given prior consent. However, a Delaware privacy law makes it illegal to intercept “without the consent of all parties.” The wiretapping law is much more recent, and at least one federal court has held that, even under the privacy law, an individual can record his own conversations.

District of Columbia - An individual may record the contents of a wire or oral communication if he or she is a party to the communication, or has received prior consent from one of the parties.

Georgia – Secretly recording or listening to a conversation held in a private place, without the consent of all parties, whether carried out orally or by wire or electronic means, is a felony invasion of privacy under Georgia law. However, the law expressly provides that it does not prohibit a person who is a party to a conversation from recording, and allows recording if one party to the conversation has given prior consent.

Hawaii – Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording.

Idaho - Allows interception of wire or oral communications when one of the parties has given prior consent.

Indiana – Recording or acquiring of the contents of a telephonic or telegraphic communication must be made by either the sender or the receiver.

Iowa – If the person listening or recording is a sender or recipient of the communication, or is openly present and participating in the conversation, the communication can be recorded without the consent of the other parties. Individuals cannot legally record conversations while not present.

Kansas – Unlawful eavesdropping consists of secretly listening to, recording, or amplifying private conversations or using any device to intercept a telephone or wire communication “without the consent of the person in possession or control of the facilities for such wire communication.” The state’s highest court has interpreted the eavesdropping and privacy statutes to allow one-party consent for taping of conversations and has held that as long as one party consents to the conversation, the other party loses his right to challenge the eavesdropping in court.

Kentucky – It is a felony to overhear or record, through use of an electronic or mechanical device, a wire or oral communication without the consent of at least one party to that communication. A conversation which is loud enough to be heard through the wall or through the heating system without the use of any device is not protected by the statute.

Louisiana – A person can record any conversations transmitted by wire, oral or electronic means to which he is a party, or when one participating party has consented.

Maine – Interception of wire and oral communications is a crime. An interceptor is someone other than the sender or receiver of a communication who is not in the range of “normal unaided hearing” and has not been given the authority to hear or record the communication by a sender or receiver.

Minnesota – It is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording.

Mississippi – It is generally a violation of Mississippi law to intercept and acquire the contents of wire, oral or other communications with a mechanical or electronic device. The law specifically provides that if a person is a party to a communication, or has obtained consent from any one of the parties, no liability can be imposed.

Missouri – An individual who is a party to a wire communication, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the communication, can lawfully record it or disclose its contents.

Nebraska – It is not unlawful to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication when the interceptor is a party to the conversation or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.

New Jersey – It is a crime to purposely intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication. The statute makes an exception and allows interception if the person intercepting is a party to the communication, or if one party has given prior consent.

New Mexico – The crime of “interfering with communication” involves knowingly and unlawfully tapping any connection that belongs to another without consent of the person owning, possessing, or controlling the property. The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the consent requirement in the statute refers to consent to the sending of the communication.

New York – Intercepting or unlawfully engaging in wiretapping without the consent of one party is a crime. Mechanical wiretapping is illegal under the statute only when the party whose wires are tapped is not a party involved in the conversation. Those who talk in the presence of a non-participating third party may have no expectation of privacy with respect to statements overheard by the third party. These laws apply to conversations conducted over cellular or cordless phones.

North Carolina – Without the consent of at least one party to the communication, it is a felony to willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or get any other person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication or to use any device, which transmits by radio, wire, or cable, to do so. In interpreting the meaning of “consent,” an appellate court determined that implied consent to interception occurs when one party is warned of monitoring and yet continues with the conversation. “Electronic communication” does not include any communication from a tracking device.

North Dakota - Anyone who is a party to a conversation or who has obtained consent from one party to the conversation may legally record or disclose the contents of any wire or oral communication.

Ohio – It is not a crime to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person recording is a party to the conversation, or if one party has consented to taping.

Oklahoma – A person may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when the person is a party to the conversation or when one party to the conversation has given prior consent.

Oregon – It is illegal for a third party to intercept, attempt to intercept, or get any other person to intercept any wire or oral communication without the consent of any parties to the conversation. Unless one is a party to the conversation or has received consent from one of the parties, it is illegal to obtain any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication. However, courts have ruled that one cannot use a device to record a conversation unless all parties of the conversation are informed.

Rhode Island – Any person who intercepts, attempts to intercept, or gets any other person to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication is breaking the law. Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic in person communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. The state’s highest court has expressly recognized that the law allows the recording of conversations with the consent of one party only.

South Carolina - One party can consent to the recording of a wire, electronic or oral communication. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.

South Dakota - One can record an oral or wire communication without obtaining consent of all the parties if he is present to the communication. Additionally, a third party can record an oral or wire communication if one party consents. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.

Tennessee – A person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or who has obtained the consent of at least one party, can lawfully record a communication. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.

Texas – Oral, or electronic communication—including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call—can be recorded by anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party.

Utah – An individual legally can record any wire, oral or electronic communication to which he is a party, or when at least one participant has consented to the recording. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.

Virginia – An individual can record wire, oral, or electronic communications to which he is a party, or if one party to the communication consents. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.

West Virginia - Recording a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or disclosing its contents, is legal when the person recording is a party to the communication or has obtained consent from one of the parties.

Wisconsin – If the person who records the wire, electronic, or oral communication is a party to the conversation or has obtained prior consent from one party, he may lawfully record the communications. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.

Wyoming - It is legal for a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication to record that communication, and it is legal for anyone to record with the consent of one of the parties to a communication. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.

Other: 

Vermont – There are no specific statutes in Vermont addressing interception of communications, but the state’s highest court has held that surreptitious electronic monitoring of communications in a person’s home is an unlawful invasion of privacy.

Piggyback Bandit on Surveillance Video at Century H.S., North Dakota

We have all heard of party crashers, but what about sports event crashers? 

A stocky man shows up in a basketball uniform for a game at Century High School in North Dakota. Players and coaches assumed he was a fan who had come with another team, so nobody objected when he began to pitch in around the bench.

“He helped lay out uniforms, got water. He even gave a couple of kids shoulder massages. Creepy stuff like that,” said Jim Haussler, activities director for the Bismarck Public School District. Creepy indeed!

When the game was over, the young man hung out with the winning team on the court and asked if he could get a piggyback ride. One shocked and caught off guard player gave him one. 

“He makes himself appear as if he’s limited or handicapped. I think he plays an empathy card, so to speak,” Haussler said. “We didn’t realize what we were dealing with until several days later.”

What they learned they had been dealing with the night of Feb. 4 was the Piggyback Bandit. Sherwin Shayegan of Bothell, Wash., is a 28-year-old man who ingratiates himself with high school sports teams. Once he has blended in and gained acceptance, he then hoists his 5-foot-8, 240-pound frame onto the backs of the student athletes.

Shayegan’s strange behavior goes back to 2008, but he remained confined to Washington and Oregon. He has since expanded his horizons beginning last fall and has worked his way east to Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota. He has left a trail of shell-shocked athletes along his way.

Shayegan has asked for piggybacks, attempted to pay for piggybacks and just sprung some on unsuspecting kids. He favors basketball games, but he also has leapt onto hockey, soccer and football players.

Other guises Shayegan has used is pretending to interview athletes for a term paper, acting as a team manager or simply blending in with the crowd for his piggyback kicks.

No one knows why he does this or who coined the “Piggyback Bandit” nickname.

On Tuesday, Shayegan was contacted on his cellphone, but he politely declined to talk about the piggyback rides until he could speak to an attorney. “I’d prefer not to comment, if that’s OK,” he said.

Shayegan has a long criminal rapsheet in Washington. He also has nine outstanding warrants in one town in that state. Due to his piggyback games, he has been banned from high school sporting events in Washington, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota.

One of his arrests came about in October in Helena, Montana for jumping, without warning, on two high school soccer players during a state tournament. 

“What’s disturbing to me is that he is jumping on our young athletes, he is 240 pounds, and he can hurt someone,” said Mark Beckman, executive director of the Montana High School Sports Association.

Although Shayegan pleaded guilty on Feb. 1 to two misdemeanor assault charges, was fined $730, given a 360-day suspended prison sentence, told not to go to any more Montana high school events, and told by the judge to, “Go back to Seattle and behave,” he didn’t stop. It was three days later when he attended the Bismarck basketball game and received another piggyback ride. He also received a piggyback ride from a hockey player after a hockey game that same day.

Shelby County Constable Fred Walker

This is a story with many twists and turns about a corrupt law enforcement official and his accomplices who let their greed lead them down a path where they were surely to be caught one day. When you involve this many people and create this many witnesses, everything is bound to catch up with you.

For those of you who were not born and raised in Texas, you may be surprised when you see a constables patrol car drive past you. A Texas constable is a law enforcement officer who is elected by the county residents they serve. A constable and the constable’s deputies are the enforcement officers for the local Justice of the Peace. They and their deputies are peace officers and they have a lot of authority. The constable and deputy constables can make arrests, issue citations and are authorized to investigate any crime or traffic offense that happens in their presence or that is reported by a citizen.

A Texas constable told the FBI he secretly bugged other official’s offices after they were accused of illegally forcing motorists to forfeit their cash, according to a search warrant affidavit.

The affidavit, based on interviews conducted by FBI agents and Texas Rangers, quotes Shelby County Constable Fred Walker as saying he authorized the installation of hidden surveillance cameras and digital recorders even though he didn’t have legal authority.

It also includes a statement from a witness who claims Walker helped organize a scheme to sell drugs seized from suspects.

Tenaha is a small town of 1,160 not far from the Louisiana border. Fred Walker,53, was Tenaha’s city marshal at the time of the alleged bugging. In 2010, he was elected as constable.

Approximately $800,000 in cash has been seized over time from motorists stopped for traffic violations along U.S. Highway 59. These incidents have led to lawsuits and a federal criminal investigation of the county’s former district attorney, along with other officials.

Walker claims to know nothing about the affidavit that was filed in U.S. District Court in Lufkin on Feb. 6. In a phone interview, where he made this denial, he was also asked if he arranged to have offices bugged. It was then that Walker hung up the phone on the interviewer, refusing to respond to this question.

Bassey Akpaffiong is Walker’s attorney and said prosecutors have told him to expect an indictment. Akpaffiong said Walker was never involved in selling drugs and never told the FBI he authorized the installation of secret listening devices.

The search warrant affidavit was filed as part of a federal case against the owner of a computer repair business in Tenaha. Roderrette McClure, the business owner, pleaded guilty Tuesday to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Authorities obtained the warrant last August to search for hard drives and other computer devices on McClure’s property. It was during this search that they found firearms.

McClure told authorities that Walker had him install surveillance cameras disguised as smoke detectors and hidden voice-activated digital recording equipment in the offices of Tenaha Mayor George Bowers and Deputy City Marshal Barry Washington. Walker said he wanted to “cover” himself over the traffic stops, most of which were conducted by Washington, according to McClure in the affidavit.

On that same day in an interview with Walker, he acknowledged that he had indeed authorized the installation of the devices in Washington’s office and at City Hall – again according to the affidavit.

A class action lawsuit, initiated in 2008, asserts that authorities in Tenaha and Shelby County threatened innocent motorists, most of them black, with money laundering charges if they didn’t forfeit over the money they were carrying. Although Walker has been deposed as part of the suit; he hasn’t been named as a defendant.

According to an Associated Press report from last October, the forfeitures were directed by District Attorney Lynda Kaye Russell. Russell allowed motorists who fit the description of drug runners or money launderers to receive light sentences or escape criminal prosecution altogether. I guess that was their reward for handing over their money and hopefully keeping their mouths shut. Russell left her post at the end of 2011.

U.S. Highway 59, which runs from the U.S.-Mexico border to Canada, is one of the country’s best-known routes for drug-trafficking. Apparently, a perfect route for shaking down motorists.

Many of the motorists have been interviewed by FBI agents. Also, a federal grand jury in Tyler has interviewed witnesses and collected evidence, according to individuals who have been questioned as part of the probe. The investigation is being headed by the Department of Justice’s civil rights division in Washington.

The investigation into Walker and McCluire began in August 2010 when Walker reported that 500 pounds of marijuana and other drugs were stolen from his evidence room. Investigators later thought the robbery had been staged.

The story gets juicier when in November 2010, Walker and McClure asked authorities to investigate extortion letters they received in which someone identified as “Jack Frost” was seeking money to keep quiet about selling drugs from the evidence room.

Investigators located a man who admitted writing the letters, and he said he had been recruited by McClure to sell marijuana and ecstasy.

The letter writer told authorities that McClure said he and Walker were stealing marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and hydrocodone (Vicodin) from the room and selling it through other individuals. The affidavit quotes the man as saying McClure and Walker replaced the stolen marijuana with “fire bricks” and that the burglary was staged to cover for the missing drugs.

Read story@ chron

The news continues to report computer hacking into customer databases of large companies. The latest victim is Microsoft’s online retail store serving India. Yes, computer giant Microsoft can’t even protect the personal data of its customers. That is scary!

I have never been comfortable with online shopping and news like this makes me wary of the occasional times when I do purchase products online. Apparently, large corporations are not doing enough to protect the personal information of their customers.

“As we saw with Sony, Stratfor, Zappos and others, hackers value this information and are selling it on a thriving black market to others focused on identity theft,” says Todd Thiemann, product specialist at encryption company Vormetric. “Companies need to rethink how to value and protect customer data.”

Microsoft took it’s Store India off line on Feb 13 after news spread that the site’s customer database had been hacked. A group referring to itself as “Evil Shadow Team” took credit in a blogpost written in Mandarin.

Referring to himself as 7zl, Evil Shadow’s self-proclaimed leader told Reuters the data had been found unencrypted on the website. On the blog post, 7zl declared himself to be a “patriotic hacker.”

A Microsoft spokeswoman told Reuters the company is “investigating a limited compromise” of the company’s online store in India. “The store customers have already been sent guidance on the issue and suggested immediate actions,” the spokeswoman said. “We are diligently working to remedy the issue and keep our customers protected.”

The hackers have also released user name and password combinations that were saved in plain text by Microsoft. “Storing this data in clear text is playing with fire,” says Thiemann.

Of all companies, you would think this computer giant would have the resources and knowledge to encrypt sensitive data and not store data in clear text.

Customers of Microsoft’s India store should change their account passwords ASAP. Also, they should be on the alert for “phishing” e-mails. These emails are intended to trick them into divulging sensitive information, such as a Social Security number, or to clicking on a seemingly trustworthy weblink that actually installs a virus.

Shockingly, it still remains a widespread practice among many online retailers not to encrypt shopper’s personal data, such as a customers e-mail, shipping addresses, phone number, the last four digits of the payment card numbers, and account passwords. The majority of big retailers do encrypt payment card numbers — but only because it is required under the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard.

As you can see, retailers are only doing the minimum in protecting their customer’s information. Apparently, the reason retailers do not typically encrypt any data beyond what is required under PCI-DSS rules is because they say that doing so can degrade their website’s performance. VISA and Mastercard do enforce the minimum requirements of the PCI-DSS; however, they are only concerned about payment card fraud losses, and have no direct financial stake in monetary and reputation losses consumers must endure due to identity theft, says Todd Feinman, CEO of database security firm Identity Finder.

Consumers need to start demanding that all of their personal data be encrypted. These occurrences are happening all too often, and anyone who has been a victim of identity theft can tell you it can take years to clean up such a mess. This is a financial, time consuming and emotional drain to an individual.

According to The Hacker News, a security researcher using the nicknames — “WeedGrower” or “X-pOSed” — in recent weeks claims to have cracked into customer databases of AOL, NASA, Hotmail, MySpace, Xbox, USBank, Yahoo, and VISA and leaked sensitive data on most of those websites.

WeedGrower also claims to have compromised chip maker giant Intel and obtained sensitive data, including credit card numbers, email addresses and passwords.

“What’s interesting about this alleged breach is credit card data that’s supposedly been obtained should be encrypted under PCI DSS,” said Mark Bower, data protection expert and VP at Voltage Security. “Either it wasn’t encrypted, which would be a violation of PCI, or they made a common mistake in assuming that data-at-rest encryption offers any protection from hackers, like in this case. If the data was encrypted at the data level, using a data-centric approach, then all bets would be off and the hacker would have useless encrypted data, and this would be a non-issue.”

There is no excuse for these large companies to not invest the time and technology to protect their customers personal information. I am hopeful that action will be taken in Congress that forces these companies to go beyond adhering to the minimum standards – and that the minimum standards will be expanded to require all personal data be encrypted. In addition, there should be huge penalties for companies that do not comply. They should also be required to pay the financial cost incurred by each and every customer that becomes an identity theft victim due to their vulnerable databases.

These large companies complain about too much regulation, but regulation wouldn’t be required if they were capable of managing themselves.

If you believe your personal computer has been breached, MSI Detective Services offers Debugging services. We can detect if your computer has been hacked and provide you with the removal of spyware and viruses and perform forensic examinations.

Read story@ lastwatchdog