Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (90009)	12/10/2004 9:12:22 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 793916

The Federal law is different from most state law on the subject. Under Federal law, a conversation can be monitored or recorded if one party consents. CA law requires consent of both parties. Sounds like WA law is the same. These statutes all contain the caveat about reasonable expectations of privacy. That's why telephone calls in the mall, conversations at a restaurant, etc. don't share the same protections. They can be legally recorded or overheard. I won't allow my clients to discuss anything of importance with me over a cell phone. Remember the Linda Tripp situation? She was threatened with prosecution under Maryland law (I think it was) for recording the conversation with Monica. Under Federal law, it was not a violation because she did the recording and was a party to the conversation. I've had these issues arise in employment cases I've defended. The plaintiff outsmarts him or herself by secretly recording coworkers and supervisors. It's a hefty price per violation. Last time I asserted a cross-complaint on these issues it was $5000/violation. Because the recordings were illegally obtained, they could also be excluded from evidence. The key to any of these statutes is whether the communication occurred where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's why you hear warnings that a conversation might be recorded "for quality control purposes" when you're holding for a service provider. As for a minor child using the phone at home, why not post a notice that calls are subject to being monitored. Removes the reasonable expectation of privacy, at least for the child....lol