Eavesdropping on your child is illegal!
 

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.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
to the mother's testimony.

"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of
individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability
to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of
encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
================================================== ===

"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.

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

That's bull****.

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

Sorry, incorrect.
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.

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


wrote in message
...
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.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
to the mother's testimony.

"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of
individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability
to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of
encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
================================================== ===

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.

I think you are absolutely correct in that assessment, Bill.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Bill Crocker

wrote in message
...
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.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
to the mother's testimony.

"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of
individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability
to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of
encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
================================================== ===

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.

Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a
recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
made.

Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.
In some states, the recording is OK if one of the parties is doing
the recording (and therefore knows about it). In others, it's not.
ALL parties have to know.

In no state (and I believe this is also a federal law) is it legal
for the husband to monitor the conversation between his wife and
her lover (or, in the case referred to, for a mother to monitor the
conversation between her child and his friends).

Gordon L. Burditt

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.

Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a
recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
made.

Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.

Incorrect. It's a federal determination (wire tap). Local state regulations
cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in
California.

Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be")
in different states. Chances are if Mom is listening on her child
talking to his friends, they (all three) are in the same state.

Who's law would apply ?

In some states, the recording is OK if one of the parties is doing
the recording (and therefore knows about it). In others, it's not.
ALL parties have to know.

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. It sounds like you state one
thing and then contradict yourself.

Different states have different rules. Some require ONE party to know,
others require that ALL parties know. Read the front section of your
phone book; chances are your state's rules are mentioned there.

But, again, recording/wire-tap laws are determined at the federal level. Any
state laws are superseded by federal law anyway.

This isn't the case if the federal law defers to the state. It's
my understanding that federal law requires that AT LEAST one party
knows about the recording, and that some states have stricter rules.

Just like California has a state law allowing medical pot use. The federal
government doesn't recognize this law and will prosecute anyone using
"medical" pot. It's a hot topic. Federal always has and always will take
precedence over state law.

Only if the laws conflict. For example, the Federal Do Not Call List
didn't abolish all the Do Not Call Lists in states that had them.
A law can explicitly say that the states are free to impose higher
penalties. Federal regulations capping speed limits on highways (for
energy-conservation purposes) don't prevent states from putting
a lower speed limit on a section of highway (for safety, noise,
revenue enhancement, or other reasons).

Gordon L. Burditt

Thought for the day...When your child who is under 18 commits a crime
and that crime cost somebody $$$'s, does the kid pay? Or does the
parent pay? Is the state willing to pay the legal fees? If a parent
can't eaves drop on a minor child, when they believe their child is
doing something illegal or unnacceptable, in their home that they are
paying for and the phone that they are paying for, then the state
shouldn't hold the parent financially accountable. THAT'S my ever so
humble GOOD parent opinion. Carmen, right or wrong...I would have done
the same thing...

As I wrote elsewhere . . .

Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough
to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents
should mind their own business. This ruling is right and just. It is also
surprising, as courts rarely rule on the side of common sense. -Dave

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. For the same thing to happen in a mother/child relationship,
the legal documents would have to be signed by an embryo. -Dave

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

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:10 -0500, "Dave C." wrote:

As I wrote elsewhere . . .

Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough
to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents
should mind their own business.

Don't have kids, eh?

Two teenagers. I take it you endorse illegally spying on my kids if they
happen to call your kids? If you don't trust your kids to use the phone
responsibly, then keep them off the phone. You don't have to let them use
the phone at all. But if you do, the law dictates that you not spy on them.
So you need to decide whether you trust them or not BEFORE they use the
phone. -Dave

wrote:
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.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."

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

If she isn't going to wiretap anymore, the answer is easy, no phones
for the kids.

Please cite the statute that you are referring to with respect to
consent to monitor or record calls -- I'm quite interested, as it is
relevant to my profession. Otherwise, please see, eg,
http://expertpages.com/news/taping_conversations.htm


The *legalities* in the case of listening in to your child's
conversations, BTW, really refer to the use of the information gathered
in court. (In this case, it appears that mom was going to testify
against the teenager with whom her child was speaking; I'd guess that
the teenager confessed to a crime. Just to keep this in perspective.)
I strongly doubt that any court is otherwise going to opine on the
appropriateness of a parent listening in on his or her kids'
conversations. So, the real questions regarding eavesdropping become
those relating to familial relations and trust.

Barbara

Two teenagers. I take it you endorse illegally spying on my kids if they
happen to call your kids?

If I suspect your troublemakers are in to something that will drag my kid
in
to the mud? You bet your ass I will.

It's not rocket science.

Two problems with that, rocket scientist. First, In the referenced case in
the OP, the mother didn't suspect anything illegal UNTIL SHE BROKE THE LAW
HERSELF. Also, how are you going to protect your kids if you end up in
prison for illegal wire-tapping for spying on someone else's kids?

If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be using
the phone. It's not rocket science. -Dave

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message
...
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.



Actually, a minor child does have some rights. It is illegal to eavesdrop
on phone conversations, and there is no exception for age of the people
talking on the phone. Minor children do NOT have the right to talk on the
phone, however. So as I've stated several times, if you don't want to OBEY
THE LAW and let your child's phone conversations be private, then forbid
your children from using the phone. -Dave

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.

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.


Ummm . . . eavesdropping on a telephone conversation is illegal. There is
no exception for employers. If you didn't sign your rights away, then you
have the expectation of privacy when using the phone . . . ANY phone. BTW,
where do YOU work where the employer is stupid enough to not insist that you
sign your rights away?

If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can expect her parents to
OBEY THE LAW, if her parents allow her to use the phone at all. -Dave

His kids are like the kids in "The Sound of Music" - always polite and
respectful to their father, like little military cadets. They never
talk back, they never lie, they never say they're going one place and
really go another... And they never need parental monitoring to keep
them from making poor decisions.

Must be nice.


Well, they do have a good mother, as I chose her very carefully. On a side
note, there was a civil lawsuit in the news recently where a jury awarded
tons of money to a mail-order bride who married a wife-beater. The
judgement was against the dating service that introduced the couple. Most
people seem to think this is OK, as the dating service should have known
that the never-previously-married man was a wife beater. Me, I think if you
are stupid enough to marry someone whom you DON'T KNOW very well, then
that's your own damned fault if it turns out to have been the wrong
decision. Choosing someone to marry (or even whether to marry at all) is
the single biggest decision you will ever make in your life. Choose
sely. -Dave

snip
But back to the original deal. If I think something is going on with my
kids
that isn't right and listening in on a phone call will let me know for
sure -
I'm going to do it. Period.

If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be
using
the phone.

If you were a parent who gave a ****, you'd do things differently. Phone
trust has nothing to do with anything.


When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on
the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not
done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into
at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I
didn't care. As long as I was responsible for him, I did what I thought was
right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys of his own and he admits that he
would have gotten into trouble had I not monitored his actions. If ever the
State thinks they can do a better job than I can as a parent, they are
welcome to take care of my kids, stay up with them all night when they are
sick, walk them to school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and
worry about them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine,
I'll do it my way.

I have to laugh, I think Dave C. is a lawyer. The minute I remove the
phones from my house because I can't trust my kids, then when there is
an emergency and something happens to my minor child, I will be
considered an irresponsible parent because they can't call 911 and I'll
be sued by my kid and the child welfare department. Where is the
common sense here. Parents are responsible for their minor childs
actions.....PERIOD. Parents, do what you must to keep your kids safe!

"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

JerryL stated so wisely:

When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether
on the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends.
Had I not done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would
have gotten into at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained
about his privacy but I didn't care. As long as I was responsible for
him, I did what I thought was right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys
of his own and he admits that he would have gotten into trouble had I
not monitored his actions. If ever the State thinks they can do a
better job than I can as a parent, they are welcome to take care of my
kids, stay up with them all night when they are sick, walk them to
school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and worry about
them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine, I'll
do it my way.

AMEN!!!

--
Tom

"That man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest."
-Henry Thoreau

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On 10 Dec 2004 13:18:54 GMT, (Gordon Burditt)
wrote:

No, federal supersedes local. Always has and always will.

That is true only in those issues where the federal government has been
granted the power to make laws by the "several states" and the citizens
thereof. In issues for which the power has NOT be granted to the federal
government, the state law supercedes, though the federal government would
like you to believe otherwise.


--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce

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 Aztl=E1n
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.

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mark wrote:
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.

Well, I think you hit on it. The AP article (and the original poster of the
thread) made a distinct point of misquoting the court case in order to
create a sensational headline, solely for the purpose of riling everybody.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

dragonlady wrote:
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.

You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
have no legal worries.

The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter.

Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your
discretion. But you can't control the rights of people she talks to on
the phone. So you have use even more discretion when eavesdropping on
both sides of a phone call.

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.

In article .com,
"Curtis CCR" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
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.

You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
have no legal worries.

My own position is that my kids started out with a high expectation of
privacy from me and their dad (and each other). When that changed, I
felt morally obligated (not legally) to tell them, and to tell them why.


The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter.

Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your
discretion. But you can't control the rights of people she talks to on
the phone. So you have use even more discretion when eavesdropping on
both sides of a phone call.

I understand that -- but, since I was only "using" the information with
my daughter, and would not have used the information in any other way, I
decided to do it anyway. (The only exception was towards a young man
who had been ordered to have no contact with her -- but I never listened
long enough to hear what he was saying, only to tell him to get off the
phone immediately. He's in prison now, so I don't worry about him any
more....)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:

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.

That's not true everywhere. I am operations manager for a major
communications provider and I serve one major corporate customer. That
customer recently asked me to connect an employee's phone line to the
call monitoring system normally used for "quality assurance" recording
in the call centers. The confidential request they made noted their
intention to monitor the employee's phone calls without his knowledge.
I had to advise them that what they were doing was illegal - I
contacted *their* legal and security group who concurred with my
advice. In California, any phone call going over the public network
cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH parties.

The company can record/monitor internal calls. They are on a private
network. So anyone that believes they have a right to privacy on ANY
phone, should think again. E-mails are different matter - that is
written corespondance that can be considered company record when it's
on their system.

The restrictions extend to the call center operations here too.
Customers hear "your call may be monitored or recorded..." The
montoring system records all calls on the customer service reps phone,
as well as what they are doing on their computer during the call. In
addition to the line for call queues, there is also a line for the CSR
to use for direct incoming calls or to make outgoing calls. The
monitoring system records all calls on the CSR's phone regardless of
what line is used.

When recordings are reviewed by management, they are always reviewed by
two people. The privacy policy requires that as soon as they identify
anything they hear as personal or otherwise not related to customer
service, they stop listening and move on. The direct line on the CSR
phone does not have a monitoring notice so the privacy has to be
extended to third party.

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? ;)
--=20
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.

In article ,
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:15:55 -0500, Mark wrote:

Not to mention another reason for "invading" your kid's "privacy". Some of
the foolish actions they may take could very well cost the parent both
legally
and financially.

BINGO.

And as long as I am on the hook legaly and financially for my child's
behavior, I'm going to control that behavior in any way I see fit.

The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is
the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone.

Sorry if that offends you bleeding heart liberals in the audience. ;)


My kids are now all 18 and older, and I have not stopped caring.

I'm glad to no longer be "on the hook", but I still care passionately.
If I thought invading their privacy at this point would serve any useful
purpose, I'd do it.

Though I will point out, in the "for what it's worth" category, that
many times the parents are NOT fined or held responsible. When my
daughter got busted in 10th grade with brandy at school (and drunk), and
when she got busted for having cigarettes in her possession, she had to
go to court, and fines were levied. I didn't pay them. Neither did she
-- until she found out she couldn't get her driver's license until she
DID pay them. The silly girl thought I'd pay the fines, or lend her the
money to pay them. (Not sure what universe she thought we were in . .
..) She finally got a job, and paid the fines -- and got her license
last week, just a few weeks before her 19th birthday.

In other cases, the parents CAN still be held responsible no matter how
old the "kid" is -- for example, if my car or house are found to have
illegal drugs in them, I could still be fined or have my property
confiscated, even if I didn't know they were there. There've been cases
where people have been thrown out of their rental units because one of
their kids (or grandkids) had illegal drugs on the premises.

I'm one of those "bleeding heart liberals" (though I much prefer to
think of myself as progressive). The only thing I find offensive about
your statement is that you stopped caring. I don't think I'll EVER stop
caring!
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

this whole issue is that the girl's mother testified at the boyfriends trial
on what she herd when her daughter was talking to the boyfriend. This case
reflects what evedence can be brought to court. As a parent you still have a
right to listen and be concerned on what your children do. this story was
not reported correctly and was a teaser, but it did make headlines right?



"Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:15:55 -0500, Mark wrote:

Not to mention another reason for "invading" your kid's "privacy". Some
of
the foolish actions they may take could very well cost the parent both
legally
and financially.

BINGO.

And as long as I am on the hook legaly and financially for my child's
behavior, I'm going to control that behavior in any way I see fit.

The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is
the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone.

Sorry if that offends you bleeding heart liberals in the audience. ;)

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.