RSS
Court Says It's Okay To Secretly Record Conversation If Done For Legitimate Reasons
from the i-may-or-may-not-be-recording-this dept
While there have been a lot of concerns lately about efforts to misuse "wiretapping" laws that forbid any recordings of people without their knowledge, it appears at least a few courts are recognizing how silly that is. Yet another court has now said that secretly recording a conversation -- in this case with an iPhone -- is okay, assuming there was no crime committed with the recording, and the recording was for a legitimate purpose. As the court noted:
"The defendant must have the intent to use the illicit recording to commit a tort of crime beyond the act of recording itself."That makes sense. The act of recording alone, shouldn't be a criminal act, as it really depends on what is being done with the recording. And, in an age where not only is recording everything easier, but for some becoming standard, requiring permission to record all audio seems like an outdated concept.
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
I have an idea...
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
I have a business...
Why and How Developers Use Mobile Payments: Infographic
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
extort the boss?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: extort the boss?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Granted, corrupt cops are more often dealt with through public scrutiny than the legal system.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What if it's a patient talking to a doctor about personal patient - doctor issues, especially a psychologist (and the patient doesn't want the conversation to be recorded). Sure the doctor may record the conversation and not intend to spread it on the Internet or give it to anyone or use it for nefarious or malicious purposes, but what if those recordings accidentally got into the wrong hands. Or what if someone was telling someone else something personal, like social security number or CC number or whatever, for a business transaction with a corporation, and the corporation recording the information keeps it in a database. Now what if some nefarious or malicious employee got a hold of that info.
There is always the possibility of recording something personal (though not illegal) and having that information accidentally get into the wrong hands. Not that I disagree with MM, but I think these are some things to think about.
Now, granted, if I'm calling a corporation and they're explaining a contract or agreement to me or something of that nature, I should be able to record them and present it to a judge later on and it should be counted as evidence. Things that are business related generally should be recordable, but there can be a blurry line between business and personal info (ie: SS number, CC numbers, etc... are personal yet can be involved in business transactions. Psychologists and doctors are professionals yet they deal with personal issues). To what extent does a business have a duty to protect personal info if they record it? Can they be trusted to properly protect it? Should they be liable if it leaks on the net or gets misused by some disgruntled employee for nefarious purposes?
See, if I'm talking to a corporation I'm most likely the one giving away personal information, not the corporation or the corporate representative. So if I record the conversation it is my duty to protect my own private information if it gets on the recording and I have an interest in protecting it. But what about the corporation? Can I trust them to protect my information as much as I can trust myself?
Then again, these days, many corporate employees have access to all sorts of private customer information (ie: CC and SS numbers). It's something we practically take for granted.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That just shows how broken our legal system is, but I think that's what you were implying.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Recording and distributing
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then I wouldn't tell my shrink any more about my kinky sexual fantasies about a teddy bear, dawn detergent and....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Sweet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This case also brings to mind the school admins that taped via lost laptops. Is that now legal?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What does this do to three strikes?
What does this do to or for warrentless wiretaps?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The recording of conversations varies from state to state. Most require the consent of only one participant to a conversation, but about 12 or so (including California) requires the consent of all participants (there are some exceptions, of course).
Is surreptitious recording a good idea? Personally, I do not think it is. This site strongly advocates privacy rights, and I find the view expressed here somewhat inconsistent with such advocacy. Do persons downloading material from the internet truly have a greater privacy interest than persons engaged in a private conversation? Reasonable minds can differ.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
recording
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I sure don't want to be recorded...
I don't need a reason to say I don't want to be recorded. Luckily, California (where I live) has a statute that specifically prohibits recording telephone calls unless both parties consent. I don't think a person should have the right to walk up to me and start snapping photos, either. I have the right to privacy, and that includes from people who want to preserve my utterances and image for posterity.
I might consider it if there were a requirement that a complete copy of any such recording has to be offered and provided to the other person within ten business days.
I do have less concern, though, about recording public officials acting in their official capacity. If a cop pulls you over, I think you should have the right to record the whole incidient. But you should not be able to record that same cop if you call him at home when he's off-duty.
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
One Party
However, Mike, if you're saying that you think outside parties should be allowed to secretly record other peoples conservations, how about you let me come wire up your house with some listening devices? Even then, at least you'll know they're there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I sure don't want to be recorded...
The act of recording is ubiquitous today and will be even more in the future, and if you don't want to end up with laws that throws people in jail for filming their sons and daughters birthdays you need to allow it and look at the cases where it makes sense to not allow such things.
Privacy is good and I'm a strong advocate for it, but I also recognize some realities and one of them is that in public or with others there will not be such privacy no more.
Besides there are very compelling reasons to allow recording of everything you see and hear, it allows proof for things difficult to prove in the past but it also can embarrass people.
People need to make a choice right now. Do people want the ability to get proof for corruption, violence and bad behavior and deal with the problem of privacy or give up that ability to protect part of our lifes that don't have real impact on society?
Yes bad things can happen like the photos taken by school officials, that were not really criminals but control freaks that should be slapped for what they did, but not by the government, if you give that power to the government they will censor everything including videos of police brutality, political corruption that directly affects them.
So we really need to think hard on this one is not that simple.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: recording
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What services those corporations do for the people?
Can people create a corporation(LLC) and do transactions through those entities?
ps: LLC's exist for exactly this purpose to serve as a proxy, to and individual it may be expensive but to a neighborhood that cost falls dramatically.
In case of health care people could finance their own hospitals that would answer directly to the community and have strong incentives to not compromise the information of their patients.
in the case of schools people could just stop sending their children to that school and either home school them or finance a new one where they can have more control over what is done in the school or another solution.
People can do better, I think people forgot what they can do and need to be reminded that they can affect change if they do wish to do so, they are just not trying hard enough to find solutions. The government is getting bigger and it seems incapable of dealing with the needs of the people, they should not be involved in little things but on some key parts like guaranteeing physical security and a judicial system that is the last resort for problem solving.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One Party
Would you find it wrong to record crooked officials, police and citizens and expose them?
Would you want non criminals to be thrown in jail because of stupidity like the schools officials?
Would you like to find yourself in jail for filming something in a park or have crippling financial punishment for that?
Would you like to have your son or daughter dragged to ta court of law because a stupid youtube video that showed somebody on the background?
Would you like to be ejected from a restaurant because you are filming your girlfriend or your children?
Would you not like to film the police abusing your neighbor?
It is troubling to think those things should not be allowed and could end up like that if people don't start paying attention to it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It is the state laws that are more significant here
I too see both sides of this one. One the one hand, I get the privacy concern. But from my days as a rank-and-file labor lawyer, the first 20-odd years of my legal career, I recall the general suspicion that when a worker claims the boss said X, many judges are predisposed to believe the boss and not the worker, so surreptitious recordings (in states where they were not forbidden) were a key component of building a case of retaliation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In the us, it depends upon which state you call from.
ref: one or two party notification.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ianal
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: recording
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ianal
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I sure don't want to be recorded...
"If you outlaw phone call recording technology, only outlaws with have phone call recording tech"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I sure don't want to be recorded...
And I sure don't see how allowing secret recording of millions of private citizens going about their everyday buseinss is helpful in uncovering some random instnace of "corrupton".
This is very weird, because the participants in this blog tend to be against traffic light cameras and surveillance cameras in public places. But, when it's using your own iPhone, it should be OK? Because you might just happen someday to catch a public official being corrupt?
I maintain that secret recording of one private citizen of another private citizen is a breach of privacy, and should not be permitted.
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ianal
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ianal
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I sure don't want to be recorded...
When you're in a public place? Why do you think so?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I sure don't want to be recorded...
So, obviously, nobody should be prevented from taking pictures of Niagara Falls merely because I am viewing it and don't want to be in the picture (though it is polite to give people a chance to get out of the way, and I would usually take advantage of such an opportunity). However, that's different than someone walking up to me to engage me in direct conversation and videotaping the encounter - even in a public place.
I understand the law generally does not take such a granular approach. However, I think it should. I think there is a reasonable right to privacy even in a public place. You should have the right to be left alone. And, while certainly anybody who happens to be at Niagara Falls on the day you go there can see you and report to others you were there, that's quite different from having your visit videotaped and potentially broadcast to the world.
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Consider this; You wake up one morning to find that someone has slashed your tires and basically trashed your car. You know exactly who it was because you've been having problems with them for some time. However there is no proof they did it, and their buddies (who were probably in on it) give them an alibi. The police tell you that there's nothing they can do without some kind of evidence.
You confront the guy alone and he admits doing it right to your face, telling you that he's going to keep on tormenting you and there's not a thing you can do about it because you have no proof and his buddies will always lie for him.
How exactly would you convince him to allow you to record his confession?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is the state laws that are more significant here
Yes, when trying to get evidence of a crime, always inform the other person that they're about to incriminate themselves on tape before recording their confession...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because you may be the victim of a neighborhood bully, I'm supposed to entirely give up my privacy?
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
ref: one or two party notification.
No, it depends on which state the recording is done in.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One Party
The comment was whether "outside parties should be allowed to secretly record other peoples conservations." You don't have a problem with that? How about letting me wire up your house then? Put up or shut up, as they say.
Would you find it wrong ... blah blah blah...
Funny how none of those examples involve outside parties secretly recording other peoples conservations.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not going to help you much with a hidden recorder in the room that neither one of you knows about.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wiretapping
As a rule, wiretapping, if not done for an illegal purpose, is allowed for impeachment - but that really doesn't go far enough.
As far as I am concerned, you are saying something that needs to be said, and IMO you are RIGHT!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"No, your honor, I did not tape that because I wanted to blackmail him. I just wanted something to listen to with my grandcildren in a coupe of years."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because you may be the victim of a neighborhood bully, I'm supposed to entirely give up my privacy?
No, recording someone for nefarious purposes, like blackmailing them, or publicly embarrassing them should be illegal, but recording someone for the purpose of exposing a crime or defending yourself against untrue allegations should be allowed.
The fact is that in today's world, there's absolutely no way to prevent someone from recording your conversation without your knowledge. Unless you search everyone you talk to, you can't be sure that they aren't using their phone or some other recording device to record every word you say. You only find out that this has happened when they use the recording for something. At THAT point, their actions should be legally judged based on their reasons for making the recording, the setting it was made in (two people in a room have more expectation of privacy than someone at a public meeting) and the contents of the recording.
In my case, in a complicated situation, my mother had a friend hang onto some money and jewelry for her. After my mother died, I found out that the "friend" had used the money for herself, for "an emergency". Nothing was written down, so I have no proof. When I can actually get in touch with her, she freely admits that she owes me money, but since my state requires two-party consent, I'd be breaking the law to record her making this admission. There's no way she'd ever sign anything or admit it in front of witnesses, because she has no intention of ever paying me or returning the jewelry. So she gets away with stealing what should rightfully be my mine because I can't record her confession unless she consents.
Yeah, that's fair...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Tire tapping
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
recording call
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: recording call
It depends what state you're in. Some states require consent from both parties and others do not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.google.com/search?q=connecticut+recording+laws
If a search engine is not adequate for your research purposes, hire a lawyer.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What rights does a University have?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What rights does a University have?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What rights does a University have?
Some states do not require the consent of both parties to record a conversation. That doesn't make what he did ethical, but it may have been legal.
What do I do?
This is really not the place to turn for help. Perhaps your university has an ombudsman who can help. Otherwise ask family or a lawyer for advice.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What about when a lead supervisor (step under sales manager) ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Abolish AntiRecording Laws
My wife is very mentally unstable and threatens, intimidates, and otherwise makes my family's life miserable at times. She is very manipulative and very good at it. I have been recording her both audibly and with video for many years. Some incidents of her captured on media are physical violence, but most of it is emotional/mental abuse. She threatens divorce whenever she doesn't get her way and that she'll take half of "our" assets. (I work, she hardly has, and we have some substantial assets my family left). The peace of mind that I have is all of the recordings, because she makes me out to be the bad guy. She is always claiming to be "the victim".
Anyway, if I did not have these recordings I don't know where I would be psychologically. It is that bad. I have not released any of the recordings to officials yet. I am not sure that I ever will, but I am just glad that I have them.
I don't understand why people are so against recording. Yes I understand that the recordings could get into the wrong hands but that is no reason do disallow recording.
I am not much of a gossiper or manipulator and so whatever comes out of my mouth is basically public record as far as I am concerned. If someone records me so what - the bank, my employer, my wife. Why don't other people see it this way?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Recordin in MY home.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Recordin in MY home.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Hippy Hop on Aug 19th, 2010 @ 7:44pm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
recording meetings between myself and my own personal attorney
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: recording
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I sure don't want to be recorded...
Whereas, if I deny the recording, they embark on putting it as if I refuse to talk with them and am not willing to work it out.
I think all persons should have the same right - namely this one. If a "bank" (i.e) is going to use a conversation in court in which I was recorded, or whatever pieces of the conversation they use and take out of context and present, how unfair is it that I cannot have justification of the conversation and refute those unjust arguments that may be put forth, with my own recorded conversation.
In essence, we Americans are subdued by corporations and their large legal budgets and the BS politicians put in place in order to continue to subdue us.
It's all gotta change and soon.
Happy New Year!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Hippy Hop on Aug 19th, 2010 @ 7:44pm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Hippy Hop on Aug 19th, 2010 @ 7:44pm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: recording
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment