"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
From:
(U Know Who)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
Reply to: "Uncle Hal" I don't Want To Hear From You! From: "Uncle Hal"
Don't Bother Group: rec.radio.cb Subject: saturday was great Date:
Sun, Dec 5, 2004, 7:26am (EST-1) Organization: Don't Write X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Complaints-To:
Just a quick update for the AKC.
There was recorded telephone conversation
between a "customer" and a keyclown
supplier.
The FCC can do nothing but contact the person. The FCC must personally
witness the infraction prior to ANY action against the offender.
Besides, you broke the law the second you began taping a telephone
conversation without the person's implicit permission and
acknowlegement.
You're not only a hypocrite when it comes to the law, you're an
uninformed hypocrite concerning the laws of the FCC that govern
communications. Educate yourself.

Twist, I *think* you might be mistaken on this

one. The way *I* understand it, it is legal to

tape a telephone conversation as long as one

of the parties is aware it is being taped.



Nope. It is illegal to tape a private conversation without the explicit
permission of the partiy OR parties being taped. In other words, it is
illegal to tape a party without their knowledge.

Basically, it prevents wire-tapping where

neither party is aware. A case in point would

be where a husband who suspects his wife of

cheating tapes her and the guy she is

cheating with, without the knowledge of either.
I know that is illegal, because we had a city

councilman do that here...he wound up getting
federal charges and felony for his

eavesdropping. But, I still think it is legal for a

person to tape another party without telling

them.

I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Wiretapping requires a judges order,,the taping of a conversation a
person is party to does not. If I were to tape your conversation with a
third party, I would be guilty of wiretapping without a judges consent.
If I were to tape a private conversation of you and I on the telephone
without your consent and knowledge, it could not be used or submitted in
a court of law, as it was illegally obtained. One can tape a radio
conversation, as it is not private, but one may not tape a private
telephone conversation. For quick reference and recall of this topic, I
invoke the case of Newt Gingrich having his cell phone conversation
taped in Jacksonville, Fl a few years ago. While the recordings were
made public and covered what were alleged conversations concerning
alleged illegal acts, no action could be taken because of the maner in
whcih the info was obtained,,,,illegally.


Ok, whatever you think, but:

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic
communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A
majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes
based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover
in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia
permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without
informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred
to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the
conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party
consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an
all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties
to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these
referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than
two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a
conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and
could not naturally overhear.

AKC Master wrote:
Ok, whatever you think, but:

Federal law allows recording of phone calls

and other electronic communications with the

consent of at least one party to the call.


Friendly disagreement here. If that were true, the federal law would
supercede many state laws in this regards.

A majority of the states and territories have

adopted wiretapping statutes based on the

federal law, although most also have extended
the law to cover in-person conversations.


Wiretapping is very different than the mere taping of a conversation.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia
permit individuals to record conversations to

which they are a party without informing the

other parties that they are doing so.


But if federal law supercedes state law (as it always does), then the
other states laws are ng. Here's the difference, right from a LEO's
mouth, with a hypothetical situation:
"If Uncle George touches his underaged niece in an inappropriate manner,
the LEOs may enact a scenario, such as having the niece call the uncle,
and ask "Uncle George, why did you do such a thing?"....and the leos can
tape the call. However, a private party may NOT tape a private telephone
conversation without the other parties strict permission. Let's forget
about ALL other scenarios and focus on the telephone, as this is where
he committed his felony. NO state permits the taping of a private
telephone conversation without the permission of the person being taped.
They MUST be informed when this is doen by a private party. The
telephone system is subject to federal statutes, not state and is
governed by the FCC. Email them and ask them about this law. It's a
felony to record a private party conversation on the telephone without
their permission. Such is the reason for the blacking out of the cell
band on scanners.

These laws are referred to as "one-party

consent" statutes, and as long as you are a

party to the conversation, it is legal for you to

record it



Perhaps,,but not on the telephone.

. (Nevada also has a one-party






consent statute, but the state Supreme Court

has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most

circumstances, the consent of all parties to a

conversation. Those jurisdictions are

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and

Washington. Be aware that you will

sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately

as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more

than two people involved in the conversation,

all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always

.illegal to record a conversation to which you

are not a party, do not have consent to tape,

and could not naturally overhear.


Agree.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
AKC Master wrote:
Ok, whatever you think, but:

Federal law allows recording of phone calls

and other electronic communications with the

consent of at least one party to the call.


Friendly disagreement here. If that were true, the federal law would
supercede many state laws in this regards.

A majority of the states and territories have

adopted wiretapping statutes based on the

federal law, although most also have extended
the law to cover in-person conversations.


Wiretapping is very different than the mere taping of a conversation.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia
permit individuals to record conversations to

which they are a party without informing the

other parties that they are doing so.


But if federal law supercedes state law (as it always does), then the
other states laws are ng. Here's the difference, right from a LEO's
mouth, with a hypothetical situation:
"If Uncle George touches his underaged niece in an inappropriate manner,
the LEOs may enact a scenario, such as having the niece call the uncle,
and ask "Uncle George, why did you do such a thing?"....and the leos can
tape the call. However, a private party may NOT tape a private telephone
conversation without the other parties strict permission. Let's forget
about ALL other scenarios and focus on the telephone, as this is where
he committed his felony. NO state permits the taping of a private
telephone conversation without the permission of the person being taped.
They MUST be informed when this is doen by a private party. The
telephone system is subject to federal statutes, not state and is
governed by the FCC. Email them and ask them about this law. It's a
felony to record a private party conversation on the telephone without
their permission. Such is the reason for the blacking out of the cell
band on scanners.


But in the case of scanners, neither party knew they were being heard. And
anyway, that law is very unique, to a unique situation, due to how pervasive
cell phone usage has become, and how that privacy is expected by most users
who don't realize it's actually a radio.


These laws are referred to as "one-party

consent" statutes, and as long as you are a

party to the conversation, it is legal for you to

record it



Perhaps,,but not on the telephone.

. (Nevada also has a one-party






consent statute, but the state Supreme Court

has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most

circumstances, the consent of all parties to a

conversation. Those jurisdictions are

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and

Washington. Be aware that you will

sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately

as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more

than two people involved in the conversation,

all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always

.illegal to record a conversation to which you

are not a party, do not have consent to tape,

and could not naturally overhear.


Agree.


Twist, states CAN make laws that are more restrictive than federal law. What
they cannot do, is take away certain rights. Case in point: It is legal to
drink alcohol in public on Sunday in the eyes of the feds. Some states say
it is illegal. And this is just one case, there are many others. Where did
you get this notion that states laws cannot be more restrictive?

AKCM wrote:
Twist, states CAN make laws that are more

restrictive than federal law. What they cannot

do, is take away certain rights. Case in point:

It is legal to drink alcohol in public on Sunday

in the eyes of the feds. Some states say it is

illegal. And this is just one case, there are

many others. Where did you get this notion

that states laws cannot be more restrictive?


I said no such thing. State law can always be more restrictive than
federal law, but it may never permit what federal law restricts. I said
federal law always supercedes state law. If a state law permits it,
(such as medicinal pot) and the federal law restricts it (such as
telephone tampering and wiretapping), the federal law wins every time,
unless, of course, a state chooses to secede and avail itself of all
federal monies and benefits it receives.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
AKCM wrote:
Twist, states CAN make laws that are more

restrictive than federal law. What they cannot

do, is take away certain rights. Case in point:

It is legal to drink alcohol in public on Sunday

in the eyes of the feds. Some states say it is

illegal. And this is just one case, there are

many others. Where did you get this notion

that states laws cannot be more restrictive?


I said no such thing. State law can always be more restrictive than
federal law, but it may never permit what federal law restricts. I said
federal law always supercedes state law. If a state law permits it,
(such as medicinal pot) and the federal law restricts it (such as
telephone tampering and wiretapping), the federal law wins every time,
unless, of course, a state chooses to secede and avail itself of all
federal monies and benefits it receives.


But federal law states you can tape a private conversation as long as one
party is aware.

From:
(U=A0Know=A0Who)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
AKCM wrote:
Twist, states CAN make laws that are more
restrictive than federal law. What they cannot
do, is take away certain rights. Case in point:
It is legal to drink alcohol in public on Sunday
in the eyes of the feds. Some states say it is
illegal. And this is just one case, there are
many others. Where did you get this notion
that states laws cannot be more restrictive?
-
I said no such thing. State law can always be more restrictive than
federal law, but it may never permit what federal law restricts. I said
federal law always supercedes state law. If a state law permits it,
(such as medicinal pot) and the federal law restricts it (such as
telephone tampering and wiretapping), the federal law wins every time,
unless, of course, a state chooses to secede and avail itself of all
federal monies and benefits it receives.

But federal law states you can tape a private

conversation as long as one party is aware.


Not on the telephone, it doesn't.