Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: laws against secret recording of conversations

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5

    Default 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. #2
    Guest
    Guest

    Default laws against secret recording of conversations

    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.


  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    344

    Default 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.



  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1

    Default 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

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    125

    Default laws against secret recording of conversations


    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.



  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58

    Default laws against secret recording of conversations

    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

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5

    Default laws against secret recording of conversations


    "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



  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5

    Default 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 <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

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    86

    Default 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" <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


  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    125

    Default laws against secret recording of conversations


    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


  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    131

    Default 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 ... .



  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2

    Default 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, 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

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    125

    Default laws against secret recording of conversations


    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


  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    24

    Default laws against secret recording of conversations

    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


  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4

    Default 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".

  16. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    7

    Default laws against secret recording of conversations

    "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.



Similar Threads

  1. Minor Dating Laws In Florida
    By baby4egurl420 in forum Florida Family Law
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 02-16-2007, 11:03 AM
  2. The big lie and the truth about Right-to-Work
    By futureoftheunion in forum Consumer Law and Fraud
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-21-2006, 07:12 AM
  3. Alabama Labor Laws
    By ginger1568 in forum legal discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-12-2005, 03:45 AM
  4. Anatomy of a Political Murder (print version)
    By Hunter in forum Personal Debt
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2004, 08:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •