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.

Technology Stocks : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (28657)	8/3/1998 10:48:00 PM
From: Craig Freeman	Respond to of 33344

Pravin, in most states it is perfectly legal for either party to a conversation to tape record it. Whether speaking in person or by phone, there is no requirement that you ask someone's permission or give them advance notice. It is also my understanding is that you can usually submit the tapes as evidence in court (provided either party is willing to testify that they have not been edited.) Moral or not, it's the law. Be careful what you say, and to whom. Craig

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (28657)	8/7/1998 12:27:00 AM
From: Robert Florin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33344

OT Not to mention the vilest act of all, - calling the mother of a young, troubled, woman to testify against her daughter based on conversations that daughter had with that mother. Why doesn't Starr just place microphones in the bedrooms and nurseries of anyone he chooses, and then subpoena the parents. While I have no sympathy for Clinton's behavior, I have much more concern about the violation of privacy that is being condoned by helplessly stupid judges whose common sense plays second fiddle to the perverted logic games which are so carefully honed in the law schools of our country and which are totally devoid of any connection to human beings and common decency. Starr is the most dangerous development of the Clinton administration. His precedent setting violations privacy is equivalent to the behavior of Nazis who invaded peoples homes and lives with impunity under the justification of the "laws" of the third Reich. Starr, not Clinton, is the biggest danger to the citizens of this country. I just don't understand why there are not more citizens who are subpoenaed who just refuse to be intimidated by this "Starr inquisition." BTW, I am still here reading all these NSM/Cyrix posts.