On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
> > What '3rd party'? Single party states require the person doing the
> > recording to be a PARTICIPANT in the discussion, this implies that at
> > least one other party is aware of their presence. Hardly '3rd' person.
> > Two party states require ALL participants to agree, again no recognition
> > of any '3rd party' right to record.
> >
> > How can a lawyer confuse this with a clear violation of the 4th with
> > non-participatory '3rd party' recording? Hmmmmm.....
>
> How can anybody confuse privacy statutes with the 4TH Amendment?
> Hmmmmmmm....
I didn't say a word about 'privacy', and there is NO implication of such
in my statement. I simply said the law says that one must be a participant
in the discussion, irrespective of One or Two Party systems, in order to
even be a party to the decision of recording. Simply 'listening in' as in
a 'snoop' is excluded under all conditions. A person has no responsibility
to allow just anyone in on their phone calls or discussions. One could
just as well call the discussion 'personal' and there IS a clear standard
about searching persons, papers, and speech.
What is a 'participatin'? At least one other party in the discussion must
be aware that you are participating, though they are under no obligation
to reveal this information at any time.
Thank you for your time, you've adequately answered my original question.
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
