Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Don't think so

   

   Mikester, Mar 10th, 2004 @ 11:09am

   
   

   Sorry, but I don't think that applies. By your logic, just having a conversation implies consent to record it by whatever means.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Don't think so

   

   Mike (profile), Mar 10th, 2004 @ 11:18am

   
   

   No, I'm saying that since it's a written communication, they were "making the recording" themselves - which suggests consent to have it recorded.
   
   A regular conversation isn't being recorded. A typed message is, by default, being recorded. It's like complaining that the answering machine recorded my message. Of course it did - that's what it's designed to do, and by talking to it, I consent to be recorded.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Don't think so

   

   Mike, Mar 10th, 2004 @ 2:57pm

   
   

   While I'm not a lawyer (either, it would seem), doesn't the EULA of some IM services indicate that by installing/using their software, you are agreeing to let someone look at your chat content? I thought I read this somewhere deep in the bowels of the MSN IM client EULA.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Don't think so

   

   Greg, Mar 10th, 2004 @ 6:11pm

   
   

   This is faulty logic on two fronts. Just because your typed conversation is digitized and transferred, doesn't mean it has to be stored or recorded. A transcript of traffic to my website is stored in the web server logs, but it doesn't have to be. The server can just serve up the pages and not record who it sent them to.
   
   And second, if your IM client stores the conversation, that doesn't mean mine did.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Don't think so

   

   Mike (profile), Mar 10th, 2004 @ 6:50pm

   
   

   I still disagree. The fact that it's written down (no matter where or how it's stored) is a "record" of the conversation. The fact that after I've typed something you can still see it proves that. It's not like you see one letter I type each second and then it disappears from your screen. By typing it, you are recording it on the other person's screen. What they do with that recording (keep it, toss it, etc) doesn't matter. It's still a recording and you know it as you type it.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Don't think so

   

   beck, Mar 10th, 2004 @ 9:17pm

   
   

   So if a deaf person uses a TDD machine for a phone call, it does not have the same protection as a voice phone call?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Don't think so

   

   Joe Baderderm, Mar 11th, 2004 @ 12:16pm

   
   

   Is your argument the same as using letters or postcards as eveidence? In any case, it would be a bad precedent to allow this defense to have any merit. The lawyer was trying to get with a 14 year old girl!
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   communication medium

   

   Patrick, Mar 11th, 2004 @ 4:22pm

   
   

   Calling IM a 'recording' presupposes it is not primarily a communication medium, but a system for recording conversation. Telephone answering machines are for recording, while the telephone network itself is for communication. If the conversation was a series of posts on a newsgroup, this argument would hold water. Otherwise, the issue is expectation of privacy--non-existant in a public chat room, but possible with IM.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Don't think so

   

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 11th, 2004 @ 4:27pm

   
   

   The fact that it's written down (no matter where or how it's stored) is a "record" of the conversation.
   So with a VOIP phone, since the conversation is digitized, u r saying it is okay for someone to use the phone conversation as evidence with out ur permission.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    No Subject Given

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2005 @ 6:24am

    
    

    the patriot act permits ISPs to record transmissions, legally, by the way.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    IL eavesdropping law

    

    Joe B, Mar 14th, 2008 @ 5:12pm

    
    

    Illinois law permits recording conversations if one of the parties believes the other party is engaged in a criminal offense against them or family member.
    
    So if the victim was under-age then it it was ok to record the conversation.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment