It might violate the invasion of privacy section of the criminal code (NJSA 2C:14-9). The person videotaping does not need to have a prurient intent; however, the taping needs to be done without your consent and in circumstances where a normal person would not expect to be taped. So there is leeway for the massage salon to argue: the sign was sufficient to elicit your implicit consent, since you went ahead with the massage; people in a massage salon would be more likely to expect taping to be done, for the protection of the salon, its employees and the public. In short, a violation here is far from clear.
Answered on Apr 10th, 2014 at 3:14 PM