lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (10/18/87)
When a friend of mine applied for a job with Northrup he asked me to be a reference. I never heard from anyone at Northrup, but on a couple of occasions there were audible 'beeps' on my phone line. A similar thing happened when another friend got a job at Mitre (inventors of the AWACS). I don't have call waiting or any other special phone features. My understanding of the law is that a phone conversation can be recorded if the recorder asks for permissions, or if audible 'beeps' are made a few times. Does anyone know for certain what the law says? Larry Cipriani tut!lvc
john@tower.UUCP (John Moore) (10/21/87)
In article <509@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > >My understanding of the law is that a phone conversation >can be recorded if the recorder asks for permissions, or >if audible 'beeps' are made a few times. Does anyone know This is a common misconception. As far as federal law goes, the call may be recorded just one party agrees, and the other party need not be notified. You may record any call that you participate in, as may the other party. -- John Moore (NJ7E) (602) 861-7607 (day or evening) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (10/23/87)
John Moore writes: >Lawrence V. Cipriani writes: >> >>My understanding of the law is that a phone conversation >>can be recorded if the recorder asks for permissions, or >>if audible 'beeps' are made a few times. Does anyone know > > This is a common misconception. As far as federal law goes, >the call may be recorded just one party agrees, and the other >party need not be notified. You may record any call that you >participate in, as may the other party. Of course, as stated, this is the FEDERAL law. And thus is applicable generally only to INTERSTATE calls. Many states (such as California) have different laws; in particular, many require ALL participants in a call to be informed of the recording AND/OR the presence of audible 'beeps' on the line. (If memory serves, California requires at least one of the above, and they seem to lean heavily towards the beeps.) Of course, these laws are applicable generally only to INTRASTATE calls. (Yeah, I know the definitions get real fuzzy here in places, but what do you expect from politicians?) None of the laws, so far as I am aware, make it illegal for you to record your own calls, with or without informing anybody. I recall a court case on the issue where the case was dropped because they realized he hadn't, technically, violated any law. But these laws do make it illegal for somebody else to record your calls (a "third party") and they do make recordings not made in accordance with their requirements inadmissable as evidence. Also, I believe there are some obscure laws making it possible for you to sue any "public employee" (whatever that might mean....) if they record their conversation with you and fail to adhere to these requirements. (This last might only be a federal law; I don't recall just now where I saw it.... sorry.) -- Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab /-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President | \-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/
robert@uop.UUCP (10/27/87)
i thought that it was "legal" for NSA and others to monitor digital traffic in the domestic realm...the fun was to digitize conversations (like most cellular and fibre optical trunks) and then legally monitor the conversations, being now digital traffic... see bamford's the puzzle palace
rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) (10/28/87)
In article <4280@well.UUCP> rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) [et al]write:
[What are notification requirements for recording calls?
FEDERAL - not required
STATE - may be required]
Last time I checked, in Massachusetts you must notify all parties
unless you have a court order allowing recording without notification.
Prosecutors tend to consider motivation as a major factor in whether
they bother to prosecute.
--
Rob Horn
UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn
Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA
(Note: harvard!infinet path is in maps but not working yet)die@frog.UUCP (10/31/87)
In article <674@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) writes: > > i thought that it was "legal" for NSA and others to monitor digital > traffic in the domestic realm...the fun was to digitize conversations > (like most cellular and fibre optical trunks) and then legally monitor > the conversations, being now digital traffic... The Electronic Communications Privacy act of 1986 revised the Federal criminal code to eliminate the distinction that used to exist between voice and video traffic (illegal to intercept) and digital and other forms of comm{nications (once not illegal to intercept) by defining them all as "electronic communications". The act includes a very broad definition of what constitutes information as conveyed in an electronic communication and effectively eliminates all the past loopholes based on nature of information or format or mode of transmission. More controversal, to at least some of us, are its elimination of much of any distinction between media of transmission; in particular the ECPA for the first time makes it a serious felony to merely listen to radio communications on certain frequencies, using certain modulations, or from certain transmitters. In fact, though the law will probably never be enforced in such cases, it is quite possible to technically commit a federal felony with penalties of 2 years in jail and $250,000 fine by simply casually tuning around the electromagnetic spectrum with the kind of garden variety shortwave radio, scanner or satellite dish system found in millions of homes. David I. Emery Charles River Data Systems 617-626-1102 983 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701. uucp: decvax!frog!die