"ajpdla" wrote in message
...
"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message
...
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, on Fri,
10
Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:

Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law

SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
conversation.

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!

Nice try, but not true.



Something that no one has mentioned is that this was the Washington State
Supreme Court. Washington State's Constitution has a higher right of
privacy
than the US Constitution, so several things that are legal in other States
aren't
legal in Washington State.

This is ridiculous. Wonder how this ever got to court in the first
place?


This went to court because it was a trial for the boyfriend who was
accused of snatching purses. The mother, herself, was never on trial. I
don't even think it says that parents can get into trouble for
monitoring their kids phonecalls. Just that any information heard can't
be entered as evidence if their kid or someone they are talking to
admits over the phone to doing a crime.

Renee

In article , "Dave C."
wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave



When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
at my discretion.

I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have
some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.

(She's more or less fine now, and I no longer feel the need to invade
her privacy.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

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.

The admissability of evidence often has nothing to do with whether the
activity itself was illegal. In the most blatent example I can think
of, it is perfectly legal for a person's spouse to tell them they've
committed a crime; however, information gathered that way can NOT be
used as evidence in a criminal trial.

Nor was there any indication that the mother recorded the call, or had a
wire tap -- she listened in on it. Her testemony about what she HEARD
was declared inadmissable.

So, if it seems necessary, I say continue to listen in on conversations
being held on your phone in your house.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady writes:
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.

I thought this as well, but I went to news.google.com and
searched for "Dixon Christensen" to get more info about the
case, and apparently in fact the court did rule that it was
against the law for the mother to eavesdrop on her child's
conversations.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:19:49 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
wrote:

Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:

Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law

SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
conversation.

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!


Sorry, but the law disagrees. It's not a queston of who owns the
phone, it's a question of who has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
By YOUR logic, the owner of a pay phone could record all your calls
and broadcast them on the store's loudspeaker.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:53:19 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:23:56 -0800, "ajpdla"
wrote:

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!

Nice try, but not true.

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 employers are required to notify both the employee and the
customer that the calls are being monitored.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:30:31 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:41:25 -0500, "Dave C." wrote:

That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it.

Why does a child have an expectation or privacy but an employee does
not? And forget that crap about how you "signed your rights away" when
you joined the company; I've worked plenty of jobs in my life and
never signed such a document, yet I know that my phone calls and email
can be monitored by my remployer at any time. It's a basic right the
employer has - I don't need to sign anything for it to be in effect.


The next time you call your phone company about your phone bill,
LISTEN to what the voices are telling you for a change... "This call
may be monitored to insure better customer service"... you think they
are making that statement out of the kindness of their heart?


If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all.

If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can buy her own phone
service. Pre-paid cell phones are widely available - no credit check
required.

Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period.

I guess you feel the same way about the GPS tracking device I have
installed in the car that my teenaged son drives? ;)


Is there a federal law against GPS tracking?

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:12:13 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
wrote:

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. In this case, if the
son was talking to a friend, and mom was monitoring, or recording, then it
would not be legal.

Problem now is, her son may have won the battle, but mom will win the war.

Bill Crocker


That varies by state, as well...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
First, In the referenced case in
the OP, the mother didn't suspect anything illegal UNTIL SHE BROKE THE LAW
HERSELF.

And you'll notice that the courts took no action against her. They just
threw
out her testimony. Can you figure out why that is?


Because the courts (judges, really) don't bring criminal charges against
anyone unless said criminal activity happens in the court. (such as
"contempt of court" and similar). If the DA were to bring wiretapping
charges against the mom in question, I doubt the "court" would dismiss the
charges. The court ruled on whether the testimony of the mother was
admissible. The judge made the right ruling. Illegally obtained evidence
is not admissible. -Dave