Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

laws against secret recording of conversations

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • laws against secret recording of conversations

    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

  • #2
    laws against secret recording of conversations

    [email protected] (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.

    Comment


    • #3
      laws against secret recording of conversations

      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.


      Comment


      • #4
        laws against secret recording of conversations

        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

        Comment


        • #5
          laws against secret recording of conversations


          S <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected] 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.


          Comment


          • #6
            laws against secret recording of conversations

            In can.legal bigj <[email protected]> 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
            ([email protected])

            Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

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

            Comment


            • #7
              laws against secret recording of conversations


              "S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected] 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


              Comment


              • #8
                laws against secret recording of conversations

                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 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<O%[email protected]>...
                In can.legal bigj <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

                Comment


                • #9
                  laws against secret recording of conversations

                  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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:<O%[email protected]>...
                  In can.legal bigj <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    laws against secret recording of conversations


                    S <[email protected]> wrote in message
                    news:[email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<O%[email protected]>...
                    In can.legal bigj <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      laws against secret recording of conversations

                      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 ... .


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        laws against secret recording of conversations

                        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, [email protected] (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 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<O%[email protected]>...
                        In can.legal bigj <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          laws against secret recording of conversations


                          Zahava Day <[email protected]> wrote in message
                          news:[email protected]
                          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, [email protected] (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 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<O%[email protected]>...
                          In can.legal bigj <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]) Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            laws against secret recording of conversations

                            On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:10:58 -0400, Zahava Day <[email protected]patico.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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              laws against secret recording of conversations

                              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".

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X