SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: mph who wrote (89990)12/10/2004 12:00:47 AM
From: Alan Smithee  Read Replies (1) of 793897
 
I think you're right. It would be his expectation of privacy that the conversation would be private. Washington has a very strict statute on intercepted conversatons.

Ah yes, here we go

We must decide whether this state's privacy act was violated when Mrs. Dixon listened to the conversation between Christensen and Lacey on the base unit of the cordless telephone without their permission....

Christensen and Lacey subjectively intended to have a private conversation. Christensen manifested this intent by asking to speak to his girl friend. Lacey manifested this intent by taking the cordless telephone from her mother, going upstairs to her bedroom, and closing the door. The expectation of privacy was reasonable...

CONCLUSION
The Washington privacy statute puts a high value on the privacy of
communications. In light of its strong wording, the act must be
interpreted to effectuate the legislative intent. Based on the subjective intentions and reasonable expectations of Christensen and Lacey, their conversation was a private one. Based on the plain meaning of the term 'transmit,' we hold that the speakerphone component of the base unit of a ordless telephone is a device designed to transmit under the privacy act. It was error to admit Mrs. Dixon's testimony regarding what she heard over the speakerphone and that error was not harmless.

The interesting case would be not where the scumbag boyfriend claims the conversation was private, but where the minor resident of the house (i.e., the daughter) took that position.

courts.wa.gov
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News