john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (08/02/85)
<<< < < Unfortunately, I don't have a "phone meter" out at the side of my house. < You have to take the word of the phone company that I've talked as much as < they say I have. Which is to say, I have to trust their computer. :-) < Why don't we have phone meters? Imagine a device that you plug into your phone line and monitors your home phone. It would log every time the phone were off hook and possibly decode the numbers that you dial. It could even indicate when the phone rang so you could see if anyone was trying to call while you were out. Great way to keep tabs on the phone Co. I have seen a device that plugs into the phone line and controls a standard cassette tape deck. It starts the deck everytime the phone is off hook and records the conversation. Great for practicing paranoids who want to see what their baby sitters and employees are really up to. If this device had a real time clock time stamp recorded on the tape then it could be used to meter your phone. John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
mayer@rochester.UUCP (Jim Mayer) (08/06/85)
In article <69600027@hp-pcd.UUCP> john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) writes: ><<< >< Unfortunately, I don't have a "phone meter" out at the side of my house. > ... > I have seen a device that plugs into the phone line and controls a >standard cassette tape deck. It starts the deck everytime the phone is off >hook and records the conversation. Great for practicing paranoids who want >to see what their baby sitters and employees are really up to. If this device > ... If I remember correctly, such a device is also quite illegal. I believe that any device that records phone conversations is supposed to emit a periodic "beep" to let people know they are being recorded. I'm not sure if this is just true of most states, or if it is true everywhere except the District of Columbia :-)... (or maybe) :-(. -- Jim Mayer University of Rochester (arpa) mayer@Rochester.ARPA Department of Computer Science (uucp) rochester!mayer Ray P. Hylan Building (via allegra, decvax, or seismo) Rochester, New York 14627
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/06/85)
> <<< > < > < Unfortunately, I don't have a "phone meter" out at the side of my house. > < You have to take the word of the phone company that I've talked as much as > < they say I have. Which is to say, I have to trust their computer. :-) > < > > Why don't we have phone meters? Imagine a device that you plug into your > phone line and monitors your home phone. It would log every time the phone > were off hook and possibly decode the numbers that you dial. It could even > indicate when the phone rang so you could see if anyone was trying to call > while you were out. Great way to keep tabs on the phone Co. > Ask someone in Germany about phone meters. They can tell you why. -Ron
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/06/85)
> If I remember correctly, such a device is also quite illegal. I > believe that any device that records phone conversations is supposed to > emit a periodic "beep" to let people know they are being recorded. I'm > not sure if this is just true of most states, or if it is true > everywhere except the District of Columbia :-)... (or maybe) :-(. Not true. It is illegal to tape a call with out knowledge of the parties. In some cases, it doesn't need to be both parties. The beep is not required, but is a standard way of indicating to both sides that the conversation is being recorded. My insurance company records every incoming call (they tell you this) without a beep, and most radio stations to not beep over telephone interviews. The standard policy is to ask if you can record the conversation, then turn on the recorder, and then ask again so you have a recorded copy of the acknowledgement. -Ron
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (08/07/85)
In article <10892@rochester.UUCP> mayer@rochester.UUCP (Jim Mayer) writes: >In article <69600027@hp-pcd.UUCP> john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) writes: >><<< >>< Unfortunately, I don't have a "phone meter" out at the side of my house. >> ... >> I have seen a device that plugs into the phone line and controls a >>standard cassette tape deck. ... >> ... >If I remember correctly, such a device is also quite illegal. I >believe that any device that records phone conversations is supposed to >emit a periodic "beep" to let people know they are being recorded. ... I read somewhere that it's legal to record from phone lines without a beep as long as the recording device is coupled to the line acoustically rather than electronically. In fact, I suspect that that's how telephone answering machines manage to record messages legally without beeping periodically. Can anyone confirm this? -- Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/07/85)
In article <308@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: >I read somewhere that it's legal to record from phone lines without a beep >as long as the recording device is coupled to the line acoustically rather than >electronically. In fact, I suspect that that's how telephone answering >machines manage to record messages legally without beeping periodically. >Can anyone confirm this? My understanding, based on a data communications course and several TV documentaries, is that regulations vary from state to state. In virtually all states at least one person involved in the conversation (as opposed to just tapping the line and listening) must know of the recording device for legality. Some states require all persons involved in the conversation to know. I'm not sure who requires the 15 second interval beep. The question about acoustic vs. electrical connection comes from a landmark court case some years ago known as the Carterphone Decision. This involved a telephone answering machine that was acoustically connected to the telephone. Basically, this was the first non-AT&T manufactured equipment that could be legally connected to the telephone network and was the entering wedge for 3rd-party telephone equipment suppliers. They got away with it by not being electrically connected to the network, thus posing no shock hazard to AT&T maintenance workers (AT&T's main excuse for prohibiting 3rd party suppliers). Later AT&T had to publish electrical standards for connection for use by third-party suppliers. I think most modern answering machines are electrically connected to the telephone network (mine certainly are). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (08/07/85)
In article <308@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: > >I read somewhere that it's legal to record from phone lines without a beep >as long as the recording device is coupled to the line acoustically rather than >electronically. In fact, I suspect that that's how telephone answering >machines manage to record messages legally without beeping periodically. >Can anyone confirm this? Sixty Minutes covered something on that topic a couple of months ago. Although it is a state (vs. Federal) issue, it is never legal to record if neither party is aware of it, but in some states it is legal if at least one party is aware that the conversation is being recorded. There was no mention of acoustic vs. physical tapping being significant. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs, leadsv, teklds}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 1333 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 [until we move ... soon] AT&T: (408)745-1440 Down 44 1/4 pounds, and counting ...
chris@que.UUCP (Chris DeVoney) (08/08/85)
> > I have seen a device that plugs into the phone line and controls a ... > If I remember correctly, such a device is also quite illegal. I > believe that any device that records phone conversations is supposed to > emit a periodic "beep" to let people know they are being recorded. ... Being a former newsperson for a couple of radio stations, I believe it is permissable to record a phone conversation if one party has given its consent, meaning you can record you own conversations. Recording other people's phone conversations, your phone or not, is wiretapping and is illegal. ABC's 20-20 program about three weeks ago covered this topic. You do not need to "beep" the conversation every 15 or 30 seconds any more. This rule was removed about 10 years ago. In the news department, it was the practice to ask permission to record the conversation first. That is a courtesy extended to interviewed people. Your own code of ethics apply to recording your own conversations. -- Chris DeVoney voice: 317/842-7162 Que Corporation uucp: ihnp4!inuxc!que!chris Indianapolis, IN #include <trademarks.all && disclaimer.all> /* you know what these are for */
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (08/08/85)
>I read somewhere that it's legal to record from phone lines without a >beep as long as the recording device is coupled to the line >acoustically rather than electronically. In fact, I suspect that >that's how telephone answering machines manage to record messages >legally without beeping periodically. Can anyone confirm this? As I recall you can record a phone call as long as one party to a call consents to it, otherwise it is a phone tap and you better have a court order. That means that you can record your own phone calls, but if you record your spouses or your employees phone calls, without their knowledge you can get in big trouble. I think 60 minutes did a segment on it a month or so ago. I don't think it makes a legal difference how the recording device is coupled. Maybe you are thinking of the old phone company rules about attaching 'foreign' equiptment to the telephone line.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/08/85)
> > If I remember correctly, such a device is also quite illegal. I > > believe that any device that records phone conversations is supposed to > > emit a periodic "beep" to let people know they are being recorded. I'm > > not sure if this is just true of most states, or if it is true > > everywhere except the District of Columbia :-)... (or maybe) :-(. > > Not true. It is illegal to tape a call with out knowledge of the parties. > In some cases, it doesn't need to be both parties. The beep is not required, > but is a standard way of indicating to both sides that the conversation > is being recorded. My insurance company records every incoming call > (they tell you this) without a beep, and most radio stations to not beep > over telephone interviews. The standard policy is to ask if you can > record the conversation, then turn on the recorder, and then ask again > so you have a recorded copy of the acknowledgement. > > -Ron This very much depends on local state laws and phone company tarriffs. In some states -- Florida, for one -- no calls may be taped without the consent of all parties. In other states, only one party need consent. And the phone company may have its own rules.
bhayes@Glacier.ARPA (Barry Hayes) (08/09/85)
How many of you have 'phone books? Well, if you were to get it out and
look, you'd find something similar to this...
Recorded calls require a beep tone
When you hear a "beep" tone at about 15-second intervals during a phone
conversation, it indicates that the conversation is being recorded. If
you hear the "beep" tone and do not want a record made of what you are
saying, ask the person to whom you are talking to disconnect the machine.
When the recorder is disconnected, the signal is no longer heard. With
limited exceptions, use of a recorder without a "beep" tone warning device
is contrary to Pacific Bell's tariffs and is not permitted.
Unlawful wiretapping is subject to prosecution
It is a crime under Federal Law for any person, including a telephone
subscriber, to wiretap or otherwise intercept a telephone call, unless
that person has first obtained the consent of one of the parties actually
participating in the call. Under California State Law the consent of
all the parties participating in the call must be obtained before any
person may record a telephone conversation or before a person who is not
a party to a call may eavesdrop on or wiretap the call. Properly
authorized law enforcement officers can engage in interceptions without
the consent of either party when proceeding under court orders issued
pursuant to applicable provisions of Federal Law or California State Law.
Does that clear it up? If any of you have any more questions, perhaps you
can take the trouble to check the 'phone book in your area.
-Barry Hayes
bhayes@su-Glacier.arpache@ptsfb.UUCP (Mitch Che) (08/09/85)
In article <474@brl-tgr.ARPA> ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >> If I remember correctly, such a device is also quite illegal. I >> believe that any device that records phone conversations is supposed to >> emit a periodic "beep" to let people know they are being recorded.... > >Not true. It is illegal to tape a call with out knowledge of the parties. >In some cases, it doesn't need to be both parties. The beep is not required, >but is a standard way of indicating to both sides that the conversation >is being recorded. In this state, Pac Bell's tariffs don't permit recording without the beep outside of a few exceptions. The beep requirement has nothing to do with the Federal Laws concerning wiretapping which makes it a crime for anyone to "intercept a telephone call, unless that person has first obtained the consent of one of the parties actually participating in the call". Note that Federal Law only requires the consent of one party. California State Law requires the consent of ALL parties... The beep requirement is not law - recorders could just as much be required to provide mooing sounds every 15 seconds... (Farms? In Berkeley??... [insert moo]... Sorry, local humor... :-) -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell --------------------------------------- disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer, too (415) 823-2438 uucp: {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfb!che
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/09/85)
> The question about acoustic vs. electrical connection comes from a landmark > court case some years ago known as the Carterphone Decision. This involved > a telephone answering machine that was acoustically connected to the > telephone. Basically, this was the first non-AT&T manufactured equipment > that could be legally connected to the telephone network and was the > entering wedge for 3rd-party telephone equipment suppliers. They got away > with it by not being electrically connected to the network, thus posing no > shock hazard to AT&T maintenance workers (AT&T's main excuse for > prohibiting 3rd party suppliers). Later AT&T had to publish electrical > standards for connection for use by third-party suppliers. > Carterfone was not an answering machine but an accoustic coupler for making radio phonepatches. -Ron
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (08/12/85)
> Although >it is a state (vs. Federal) issue, it is never legal to record if neither party > is aware of it That is almost true, but not quite. Conversations with neither party aware CAN be recorded, but it requires a court order, which in most cases requires grounds for "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been or will be committed. --Greg