On 10 Dec 2004 12:29:31 -0800, "Curtis CCR"
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:55:07 GMT, dragonlady

wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:25:33 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C."
wrote:

Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees
but not
OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?


Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a
condition of
employment.

And a minor child has no rights to begin with.

Although I agree this is how it should be - the courts have
decided otherwise
in this particular case.

This conversation has gotten weird.

I read the article again, and it does NOT say that a parent
eavesdropping on their child is illegal. The mother in question has
not
been charged with any crime.

What the court ruled was that information gathered this way was not
admissable in a court of law in a case involving a third party.

No, it said her testimony could not be admissible because the
information she
received was obtained by violating the other person's civil rights.

What other person's civil rights? Her daughter's? The article leads
me to believe no such thing. It did not say that her minor daughter
had any expectation of privacy in the parents' home. This dealt
strictly with testimony in a criminal matter, and how the information
from that testimony was obtained. I doubt it cleared the way for the
daughter to sue her mother. They said the police can't use it.

I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from
the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other kid
admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else say,
and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay -
inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained.

Presumeably the daughter was talking to someone else on the phone.
She had no parental rights to intrude on the expectation of that
person's right to privacy.