At 08:57 PM 04/24/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
No, I don't have any responsibility to tell you when I'm recording or why.
The best protection for bad speech is more speech, get your own recorder.
I predict a new industry, mobile surveillance systems for cars. There will
be a small CCD camera
And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or
tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in
jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts.
Peter Trei
--
From: Bill Stewart[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 08:57 PM 04/24/2001 -0500, Jim Choate
Peter wrote:
And if you're in a two-party state,
unless you have a sign or tell the
trooper that you're recording, you
can wind up in jail. It's happened
recently here in Massachusetts.
Details, citation, URL, please.
S a n d y
conversations and the laws of men
And if you're in a two-party state, unless you have a sign or
tell the trooper that you're recording, you can wind up in
jail. It's happened recently here in Massachusetts.
Peter Trei
--
From: Bill Stewart[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 08:57 PM 04
--
From: Sandy Sandfort[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:30 PM
To: Trei, Peter; 'Bill Stewart'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Peter wrote:
And if you're in a two-party state,
unless
]; 'Sandy Sandfort' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: Recording conversations and the laws of men
--
From: Sandy Sandfort[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:30 PM
To: Trei, Peter; 'Bill Stewart'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE
Police officers have the
same rights as other citizens, said
prosecutor Paul Dawley...
Not in the performance of their duties, otherwise we truly have secret
police. Not a good thing. I hope Hyde appeals; this is bad law.
There is definitely existing case law (which I will try to
Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote:
Again, just so. The laws about tape-recording conversations have no
basis in any moral theory I can support. If I choose to gargoyle
Finaly an open and honest Tim May, he doesn't believe in self defence.
I believe I can die
At 06:48 PM 4/25/01 -0400, Sunder wrote:
David Honig wrote:
Personally I plan to teach Jr. how to do covert recording; otherwise it
might
be his word vs. a schoolyard bully or state-employed bully. [FWIW, I think
some girl
was recently acquitted of wiretap charges for taping or imaging a
At 03:23 PM 4/24/01 -0500, Jon Beets wrote:
Here in the state of Oklahoma, recording conversations is legal as long as
one of the individuals in the conversation knows its being recorded. So a
third party wanting to listen in without the other two knowing is still
required to follow the standard
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
So we instead force everyone to reveal that they are recording, in all
cases then. That's the only way a 'mutual contract' can work, take away
the 'right not to speak'.
No Jim, what's *nice* about this is that it makes recording-restrictions a
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
And if you record a chat with someone in Maryland, where both parties have
to agree
A federal crime, perhaps?
No, silly. The person in Maryland can't make the recording w/o your
permission, the person in Oklahoma can (without your knowledge).
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Jon Beets wrote:
That does bring up an interesting point... What about IM programs like ICQ
or even IRC programs like MIRC that have the built in ability to record
discussions? In fact I believe ICQ's default setting is set to record...
Then in two party states where
David Honig wrote:
Personally I plan to teach Jr. how to do covert recording; otherwise it might
be his word vs. a schoolyard bully or state-employed bully. [FWIW, I think
some girl
was recently acquitted of wiretap charges for taping or imaging a teacher's
lecture
(for review later)
At 08:57 PM 4/24/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 11:05 AM 4/24/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
(Even contractual issues are amenable to this analysis. If Alice
doesn't want to be taped in her interactions with Bob, she can
negotiate an arrangement that he
Here in the state of Oklahoma, recording conversations is legal as long as
one of the individuals in the conversation knows its being recorded. So a
third party wanting to listen in without the other two knowing is still
required to follow the standard legal proceedings...
Jon Beets
-
: Jon Beets[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Reply To: Jon Beets
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Recording conversations and the laws of men
Here in the state of Oklahoma, recording conversations is legal as long as
one
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 11:05 AM 4/24/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
(Even contractual issues are amenable to this analysis. If Alice
doesn't want to be taped in her interactions with Bob, she can
negotiate an arrangement that he turns off his tape recorders in her
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote:
Again, just so. The laws about tape-recording conversations have no
basis in any moral theory I can support. If I choose to gargoyle
Finaly an open and honest Tim May, he doesn't believe in self defence.
I believe I can die happy now ;)
19 matches
Mail list logo
