Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
High court hears dispute over whether sending camera images to the subject is 'dissemination'
Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court considered whether a person who screenshots a home security-camera recording and sends the image to the person pictured can be convicted of disseminating a private image under section 105, with defense counsel urging a narrow, plain‑meaning reading and the Commonwealth urging a broader interpretation that treats production and transmission as aggravated harm.
The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Clarence Henrique Goncalves on whether sending an image taken from a home security camera to the person pictured qualifies as "dissemination" under section 105, and whether the jury had sufficient evidence to convict.
Haley Jacobson, appearing for Clarence Henrique Goncalves, told the court the Commonwealth’s theory would risk criminalizing routine security cameras and that the evidence here does not show intentional recording. "The ordinary meaning of 'disseminate' implies some level of public disclosure," Jacobson said, arguing that sending a picture to the person in it is not the same as sharing it with a third party.
The issue matters because section 105 carries a felony dissemination offense and a misdemeanor recording…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
