PDA

View Full Version : laws against secret recording of conversations


S
09-28-2003, 09:52 AM
hi there,

was reading a bit on the legal groups and cam across many threads
regarding the legality of using a dictaphone to record a conversation
without the other persons consent.

In some places it is legal. In some it is not.

What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws.
To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these
laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who
would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court
would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what
they actually said.

Am i undertanding this wrongly?

thanks,
Sam

Guest
09-28-2003, 10:27 AM
ashincus@yahoo.com (S) wrote:

To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of theselaws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people whowould not want to repeat what they said in court.

Right, they protect politicians, lawyers and mobsters.

Richard
09-28-2003, 10:37 AM
S wrote:

hi there,
was reading a bit on the legal groups and cam across many threads regarding the legality of using a dictaphone to record a conversation without the other persons consent.
In some places it is legal. In some it is not.
What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws. To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what they actually said.
Am i undertanding this wrongly?
thanks, Sam

In the USA, generally speaking, as a non-legal person, the use of such
devices in YOUR personal environment, such as your home or office, is legal.
Police officers here routinely carry portable tape recorders on their
persons and tape conversations without the other person's knowledge or
consent. Police also use video cameras to record any number of things with.
That is legal.
What is not legal, in most cases, is for you to "plant a bug" to record the
conversations of others in areas where you will not be or have direct
control of.
Such as "bugging" your neighbor's home so you can eavesdrop on them without
them knowing it.

It basically depends on the circumstances as to whether or not it's legal.
If you record a conversation on your phone, in the USA, you must advise your
parties that the conversation is being recorded.
You could not use that tape in a court of law, but you can use it to prove
what was said.

This is purely a generalized summation, not to be used for every
jurisdiction.

bigj
09-28-2003, 11:14 AM
In Canada it is technically illegal to record a private conversation
with another person, unless, ofcourse, the other person consents.

S wrote:

hi there, was reading a bit on the legal groups and cam across many threads regarding the legality of using a dictaphone to record a conversation without the other persons consent. In some places it is legal. In some it is not. What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws. To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what they actually said. Am i undertanding this wrongly? thanks, Sam

Rod Speed
09-28-2003, 12:13 PM
S <ashincus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aae68159.0309280852.46d92680@posting.google.c om...

was reading a bit on the legal groups and cam across many threads regarding the legality of using a dictaphone to record a conversation without the other persons consent.
In some places it is legal. In some it is not.
What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws.

Thats because its surprisingly complicated and to some extent ad hoc.

To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who would not want to repeat what they said in court.

Nope, the main logic behind the laws is the same one that doesnt
allow 'the govt' etc to open and read all your snailmail if they feel
like doing that except in exceptional circumstances. Same 'logic'
with requiring a search warrant in many situations etc.

People who in court would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what they actually said.
Am i undertanding this wrongly?

Yep, its mindlessly superficial.

Stephen Jenuth
09-28-2003, 08:52 PM
In can.legal bigj <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote:
In Canada it is technically illegal to record a private conversation with another person, unless, ofcourse, the other person consents.

This is, of course, not the case. In Canada, it is perfectly legal
to record a conversation between two people if only one person
agrees. Thus if I am talking to you, I can record that conversation.

However, if you are talking to someone else, and I am not a party to
the conversation, then I am not allowed to record the conversation or
to use technical means to intercept the conversation.

There is an important limit to this. Police and other law enforcement
officers are not permitted to intercept private communications without
a warrant. Even if they have the consent to one party, they should have
a warrant or the intercepted conversation likely not going to be admissible
in Court. And with a warrant, they are permitted to intercept conversations
without consent.

S wrote:

....

What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws. To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what they actually said. Am i undertanding this wrongly?

The purpose of the laws is to protect your privacy. If you are talking
to someone, you probably have not privacy interest in keeping the person
from having an accurate recollection. You may not want the person to
repeat the converstion, but that's not something you can control. It
really depends on trust, and that often is misplaced. By the way, as
I have told a lot of people, the trick to keeping something a secret
is not to tell anyone.

On the other hand, police and other law enforcement official should
be further limited. Police have tremendous powers, which can be used
for both good and evil. In a democracy, their powers should be limited,
and a requirement that they should justify their actions which impinge
on privacy in advance before someone impartial is quite reasonable.

Anyway, that's the position in Canada as I understand it.

--

Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

Charles L
09-29-2003, 07:24 AM
"S" <ashincus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aae68159.0309280852.46d92680@posting.google.c om...
hi there, was reading a bit on the legal groups and cam across many threads regarding the legality of using a dictaphone to record a conversation without the other persons consent. In some places it is legal. In some it is not.

Yes I think the law varies from State to State.

What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws. To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what they actually said.

Yes, absolutely correct. A prime example being police.

Am i undertanding this wrongly?

No, I think you're understanding it quite well.

Charles L

S
09-29-2003, 09:25 AM
Thanks for all your replies. this got me thinking about places which
do not allow one-party consent recordings....is it legal to phone
someone and have human witnesses listening to the converstation
without telling the person on the other end?Witnesses with a clean
conduct and good reputation. Witnesses who know shorthand? perhaps two
or three of them. The more you can afford to hire the more credible
your case will be in court.

Isnt this a legal loophole ? Who can afford to hire witnesses
can...who can only afford to borrow a dictaphone cant.

Sam


Stephen Jenuth <jenuths@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<O%Ndb.41548$TM4.7033@pd7tw2no>...
In can.legal bigj <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote:
In Canada it is technically illegal to record a private conversation with another person, unless, ofcourse, the other person consents. This is, of course, not the case. In Canada, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation between two people if only one person agrees. Thus if I am talking to you, I can record that conversation. However, if you are talking to someone else, and I am not a party to the conversation, then I am not allowed to record the conversation or to use technical means to intercept the conversation. There is an important limit to this. Police and other law enforcement officers are not permitted to intercept private communications without a warrant. Even if they have the consent to one party, they should have a warrant or the intercepted conversation likely not going to be admissible in Court. And with a warrant, they are permitted to intercept conversations without consent.
S wrote: ...
What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws. To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what they actually said. Am i undertanding this wrongly? The purpose of the laws is to protect your privacy. If you are talking to someone, you probably have not privacy interest in keeping the person from having an accurate recollection. You may not want the person to repeat the converstion, but that's not something you can control. It really depends on trust, and that often is misplaced. By the way, as I have told a lot of people, the trick to keeping something a secret is not to tell anyone. On the other hand, police and other law enforcement official should be further limited. Police have tremendous powers, which can be used for both good and evil. In a democracy, their powers should be limited, and a requirement that they should justify their actions which impinge on privacy in advance before someone impartial is quite reasonable. Anyway, that's the position in Canada as I understand it. -- Best regards, Stephen Jenuth (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

Larry Smith
09-29-2003, 09:46 AM
A few years ago a discussion raged in ML about secret recording. Recording
without permission is a felony in FL, where a kid got nabbed and arrested by
a customs agent for taping as the customs agent shook him down.

Charges were later dropped but you had better read the Florida statute
before you do any taping in Florida. I can imagine that official insolence
in that state enjoys its secrecy and unaccountability and doesn't like to be
recorded.

Don't hold Florida to tooooo high a standard. After all it built its roads
in the 20th century with slave labor, steals elections, exonerates felons
who happen to be close to the governor, and produced Cruella "Harris"
D'Eville.

"S" <ashincus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aae68159.0309290825.43562309@posting.google.c om...
Thanks for all your replies. this got me thinking about places which do not allow one-party consent recordings....is it legal to phone someone and have human witnesses listening to the converstation without telling the person on the other end?Witnesses with a clean conduct and good reputation. Witnesses who know shorthand? perhaps two or three of them. The more you can afford to hire the more credible your case will be in court. Isnt this a legal loophole ? Who can afford to hire witnesses can...who can only afford to borrow a dictaphone cant. Sam Stephen Jenuth <jenuths@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:<O%Ndb.41548$TM4.7033@pd7tw2no>...
In can.legal bigj <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote:
In Canada it is technically illegal to record a private conversation with another person, unless, ofcourse, the other person consents. This is, of course, not the case. In Canada, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation between two people if only one person agrees. Thus if I am talking to you, I can record that conversation. However, if you are talking to someone else, and I am not a party to the conversation, then I am not allowed to record the conversation or to use technical means to intercept the conversation. There is an important limit to this. Police and other law enforcement officers are not permitted to intercept private communications without a warrant. Even if they have the consent to one party, they should have a warrant or the intercepted conversation likely not going to be
admissible
in Court. And with a warrant, they are permitted to intercept
conversations
without consent.
S wrote: ...
> What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws.> To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these> laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people
who
> would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court> would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of
what
> they actually said.>> Am i undertanding this wrongly? The purpose of the laws is to protect your privacy. If you are talking to someone, you probably have not privacy interest in keeping the person from having an accurate recollection. You may not want the person to repeat the converstion, but that's not something you can control. It really depends on trust, and that often is misplaced. By the way, as I have told a lot of people, the trick to keeping something a secret is not to tell anyone. On the other hand, police and other law enforcement official should be further limited. Police have tremendous powers, which can be used for both good and evil. In a democracy, their powers should be limited, and a requirement that they should justify their actions which impinge on privacy in advance before someone impartial is quite reasonable. Anyway, that's the position in Canada as I understand it. -- Best regards, Stephen Jenuth (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

Rod Speed
09-29-2003, 01:56 PM
S <ashincus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aae68159.0309290825.43562309@posting.google.c om...

Thanks for all your replies. this got me thinking about places which do not allow one-party consent recordings....is it legal to phone someone and have human witnesses listening to the converstation without telling the person on the other end?

Yes.

Witnesses with a clean conduct and good reputation. Witnesses who know shorthand? perhaps two or three of them. The more you can afford to hire the more credible your case will be in court.

Yes, just like with witnesses when it isnt a phone conversation.

Isnt this a legal loophole ?

Nope.

Who can afford to hire witnesses can...who can only afford to borrow a dictaphone cant.

Just as true of any situation where you setup a situation
where there is a witness to something. Only a fool expects
that those with better resources dont have better capabiltys.


Stephen Jenuth <jenuths@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<O%Ndb.41548$TM4.7033@pd7tw2no>...
In can.legal bigj <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote:
In Canada it is technically illegal to record a private conversation with another person, unless, ofcourse, the other person consents. This is, of course, not the case. In Canada, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation between two people if only one person agrees. Thus if I am talking to you, I can record that conversation. However, if you are talking to someone else, and I am not a party to the conversation, then I am not allowed to record the conversation or to use technical means to intercept the conversation. There is an important limit to this. Police and other law enforcement officers are not permitted to intercept private communications without a warrant. Even if they have the consent to one party, they should have a warrant or the intercepted conversation likely not going to be admissible in Court. And with a warrant, they are permitted to intercept conversations without consent.
S wrote: ...
> What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws.> To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these> laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who> would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court> would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what> they actually said.>> Am i undertanding this wrongly? The purpose of the laws is to protect your privacy. If you are talking to someone, you probably have not privacy interest in keeping the person from having an accurate recollection. You may not want the person to repeat the converstion, but that's not something you can control. It really depends on trust, and that often is misplaced. By the way, as I have told a lot of people, the trick to keeping something a secret is not to tell anyone. On the other hand, police and other law enforcement official should be further limited. Police have tremendous powers, which can be used for both good and evil. In a democracy, their powers should be limited, and a requirement that they should justify their actions which impinge on privacy in advance before someone impartial is quite reasonable. Anyway, that's the position in Canada as I understand it. -- Best regards, Stephen Jenuth (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

09-30-2003, 01:03 PM
Larry Smith wrote:

A few years ago a discussion raged in ML about secret recording.
Recording
without permission is a felony in FL, where a kid got nabbed and
arrested by
a customs agent for taping as the customs agent shook him down. Charges were later dropped but you had better read the Florida statute before you do any taping in Florida. I can imagine that official
insolence
in that state enjoys its secrecy and unaccountability and doesn't like
to be
recorded. Don't hold Florida to tooooo high a standard. After all it built its
roads
in the 20th century with slave labor, steals elections, exonerates felons who happen to be close to the governor, and produced Cruella "Harris" D'Eville.

You have hit the nail on the head. Florida is a
swamp in more ways than one. And allowing tape
recording of public officials as they shake someone
down would be reasonable. But then again this is a
collapsing empire, so expecting reasonable behavior
on the part of the government is, well, unreasonable.

I am planning on posting a new thread today about
right turn on red laws which is motivated by some
of the goings on around here. It's the sort of
thing where you are ****ed if you do and ****ed
if you don't.

Florida does have a provision for popular initiatives
similar to California's. But I don't hold out much
hope ... .

Zahava Day
10-01-2003, 12:10 PM
I believe that listening in on a telephone conversation to which you
are not a party is still interception of private communication. On
the phone, people have an expectation of privacy. It's not the same
as listening in on someone's conversation on the bus, where there is
no expectation of privacy.

Z

On 29 Sep 2003 09:25:45 -0700, ashincus@yahoo.com (S) wrote:

Thanks for all your replies. this got me thinking about places whichdo not allow one-party consent recordings....is it legal to phonesomeone and have human witnesses listening to the converstationwithout telling the person on the other end?Witnesses with a cleanconduct and good reputation. Witnesses who know shorthand? perhaps twoor three of them. The more you can afford to hire the more credibleyour case will be in court.Isnt this a legal loophole ? Who can afford to hire witnessescan...who can only afford to borrow a dictaphone cant.SamStephen Jenuth <jenuths@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<O%Ndb.41548$TM4.7033@pd7tw2no>...
In can.legal bigj <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote:
In Canada it is technically illegal to record a private conversation with another person, unless, ofcourse, the other person consents. This is, of course, not the case. In Canada, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation between two people if only one person agrees. Thus if I am talking to you, I can record that conversation. However, if you are talking to someone else, and I am not a party to the conversation, then I am not allowed to record the conversation or to use technical means to intercept the conversation. There is an important limit to this. Police and other law enforcement officers are not permitted to intercept private communications without a warrant. Even if they have the consent to one party, they should have a warrant or the intercepted conversation likely not going to be admissible in Court. And with a warrant, they are permitted to intercept conversations without consent.
S wrote: ...
> What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws.> To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these> laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who> would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court> would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what> they actually said.>> Am i undertanding this wrongly? The purpose of the laws is to protect your privacy. If you are talking to someone, you probably have not privacy interest in keeping the person from having an accurate recollection. You may not want the person to repeat the converstion, but that's not something you can control. It really depends on trust, and that often is misplaced. By the way, as I have told a lot of people, the trick to keeping something a secret is not to tell anyone. On the other hand, police and other law enforcement official should be further limited. Police have tremendous powers, which can be used for both good and evil. In a democracy, their powers should be limited, and a requirement that they should justify their actions which impinge on privacy in advance before someone impartial is quite reasonable. Anyway, that's the position in Canada as I understand it. -- Best regards, Stephen Jenuth (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

Rod Speed
10-01-2003, 02:03 PM
Zahava Day <dayz@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:u79mnvsrs6eu1koq2m97c8nrjmplbvt7hl@4ax.com...

I believe that listening in on a telephone conversation to which you are not a party is still interception of private communication.

You're wrong.

On the phone, people have an expectation of privacy.

Not with others in the room etc they dont.

It's not the same as listening in on someone's conversation on the bus, where there is no expectation of privacy.

Same as having a phone conversation with others in the room.


On 29 Sep 2003 09:25:45 -0700, ashincus@yahoo.com (S) wrote:
Thanks for all your replies. this got me thinking about places whichdo not allow one-party consent recordings....is it legal to phonesomeone and have human witnesses listening to the converstationwithout telling the person on the other end?Witnesses with a cleanconduct and good reputation. Witnesses who know shorthand? perhaps twoor three of them. The more you can afford to hire the more credibleyour case will be in court.Isnt this a legal loophole ? Who can afford to hire witnessescan...who can only afford to borrow a dictaphone cant.SamStephen Jenuth <jenuths@horace.homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<O%Ndb.41548$TM4.7033@pd7tw2no>...
In can.legal bigj <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote: > In Canada it is technically illegal to record a private conversation > with another person, unless, ofcourse, the other person consents. This is, of course, not the case. In Canada, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation between two people if only one person agrees. Thus if I am talking to you, I can record that conversation. However, if you are talking to someone else, and I am not a party to the conversation, then I am not allowed to record the conversation or to use technical means to intercept the conversation. There is an important limit to this. Police and other law enforcement officers are not permitted to intercept private communications without a warrant. Even if they have the consent to one party, they should have a warrant or the intercepted conversation likely not going to be admissible in Court. And with a warrant, they are permitted to intercept conversations without consent. > S wrote: ... >> What I havent found is an explanation of the logic behind such laws. >> To my limited legal knowledge it seems that the end result of these >> laws is that they protect the liars and bullies of society, people who >> would not want to repeat what they said in court. People who in court >> would,given the chance, would lie and give a different version of what >> they actually said. >> >> Am i undertanding this wrongly? The purpose of the laws is to protect your privacy. If you are talking to someone, you probably have not privacy interest in keeping the person from having an accurate recollection. You may not want the person to repeat the converstion, but that's not something you can control. It really depends on trust, and that often is misplaced. By the way, as I have told a lot of people, the trick to keeping something a secret is not to tell anyone. On the other hand, police and other law enforcement official should be further limited. Police have tremendous powers, which can be used for both good and evil. In a democracy, their powers should be limited, and a requirement that they should justify their actions which impinge on privacy in advance before someone impartial is quite reasonable. Anyway, that's the position in Canada as I understand it. -- Best regards, Stephen Jenuth (jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

Cynic
10-02-2003, 03:35 AM
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:10:58 -0400, Zahava Day <dayz@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

I believe that listening in on a telephone conversation to which youare not a party is still interception of private communication. Onthe phone, people have an expectation of privacy. It's not the sameas listening in on someone's conversation on the bus, where there isno expectation of privacy.

In the UK, that is *only* true if neither participant knows about the
3rd party.

In the UK, it is perfectly legal for a party to a telephone
conversation to record that conversation *and* the recording would be
usable in court. In the UK, it is also legal to record a live
conversation between people who do *not* know that they are being
recorded. IOW it is not illegal in the UK to plant a "bug" so long as
it is not a telephone bug.

It is not permitted to record a *telephone* conversation without
either party knowing that it is being recorded.

--
Cynic

Big_Kev
10-02-2003, 10:10 AM
I had a similar problem with a nighbour a few years ago, first of all
i checked with BT (British Telecom), they told me it was totally legal
to record a telephone conversation providing that one of the parties
involved in the conversation was fully aware that it was being taped.

I used this against a neighbour who was really causing me grief,
maliciously reporting me for things i hadn't done, telling people that
i was claiming benefits and running my own business ( i did have a
business but was not on benefits ), complained about me running a
business from home (i wasn't i had a rented factory unit), reported me
to social services saying i was leaving my children at home alone, (we
never ever did), and even complained to me in the street because i
owned a Range Rover, "how on earth can you afford one of these" she
said, the list is endless about stuff she and her friend did.

I decided to box clever, and had a friend phone her up when she
started up a neighbourhood watch programme, he phoned and after 30
mins or so , directed the conversation round to me (he was excellent
at this play acting) and she told him all sorts about what she had
done to me, all down on tape.

This i then played to all our "reasonable" neighbours in the close
where we lived, and her husband, who was in the army and dead against
her acting like this, and while im really against wife beaters, on
this occasion i understood why he did what he did.

On disgusted neighbour also told me about her friend who was involved
who had a bloke living with her, he had for 15 years, and she was
claiming a widows pension from the coal board i think it was, she lost
it when they discovered she was living with someone, and wanted 10
years or so payments back (she stopped me again and asked me if it was
me who had "laid her in", with a big cheesey grin i said YES, and im
not finished yet), also council tax people didn't know this bloke was
living there also, guess who put them straight.


A good motto is "dont throw stones if you live in a glass house".

Peter D
10-03-2003, 04:03 PM
"bigj" <nospam@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:vne9a6n918vc75@corp.supernews.com...
In Canada it is technically illegal to record a private conversation with another person, unless, ofcourse, the other person consents.

WRONG.

In Canada it is completely legal to record a conversation provided at least
_one_ of the party consents. IOW, If _I_ record a phone conversation with
you the requirement is met by _me_ giving myself permission.

It is only illegal in Canada to record a conversaiton if you would not
normally be privy to it. IOW, to record for the purpose of eavesdropping.
Without a court order of course.

Canada allows for non-permission recording in other circumstances as well.
It has been ruled legal for a parent to record a phone conversaiton between
an estranged spouse and a custodial child because the parent believed the
estranged spouse was acting to damage the relationship and thus harming the
child and required proof for the court.

Parents have been allowed to record their children's conversations with
impunity when the reason for doing so was concern over drugs, gangs, and
exploitation by adults.

As I said, you are quite wrong in your understanding of Canadian law.

* Find more information on Drug Testing Laws.
Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements