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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Peter Dierks who wrote (237520)6/16/2005 2:31:24 AM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (2) of 1576600
 
"The reason she is not in jail now is because the law requires that one participant of the conversation being recorded consent to the recording."

That isn't the case. Maryland law is very vague on the subject. The law can be interpreted to mean that both parties of a recorded conversation need to be informed before such recording is disclosed. Or it could be interpreted to mean that Maryland law is silent on the subject. It does not, like Texas law, explicitly state that only one participant of the conversation consent to the recording. What is explicit is that undercover police cannot tape criminals conversations without both parties consent or a judges approval.
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