From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
Twisty misguidedly wrote:
Besides, you broke the law the second you began taping a telephone
conversation without the person's implicit permission and
acknowlegement.
You're not only a hypocrite when it comes to the law, you're an
uninformed hypocrite concerning the laws of the FCC that govern
communications. Educate yourself.
_
ROFLMAO 100000000 XXXXXXX Twsity the NG Lawyer telling someone else they
are uniformed and calling them a hypocrite, when he is the Biggest
Hypocrite of all Look at his Post anyone most certainly can record the
conversation they are part of and does not have to dosclose to other
party they are being taped. A 3rd party cannot tape 2 people who have no
idea they are being taped.
_
Again, when you manage you compose yourself and remove yourself from
under the table, educate yourself on this matter. This is why you suffer
such a great communication deficit. Your ignorance has no bounds,
despite being properly informed, repeatedly.

(Twistedhed) wrote in news:27923-41B5C689-445
@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net:

Nope. It is illegal to tape a private conversation without the
explicit
permission of the partiy OR parties being taped. In other words, it
is
illegal to tape a party without their knowledge.

better tell that to that woman who taped Bill Orielly or how bout Linda
Tripp or the Scott Peterson case, no there was no judge permission
beforehand and no they were not police officers it was recorded without
the other persons knowledge ha ha Tipsy you got nailed in a lie, now do
the crow eating shuffle LOL

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:03:25 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

(Twistedhed) wrote in news:27923-41B5C689-445
:


Nope. It is illegal to tape a private conversation without the explicit
permission of the partiy OR parties being taped. In other words, it is
illegal to tape a party without their knowledge.

Bull****, you lying sac of man ****, not if the person doing the taping is
part of the conversation.

Depends on what state you live in.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
From:
(U Know Who)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
Reply to: "Uncle Hal" I don't Want To Hear From You! From: "Uncle Hal"
Don't Bother Group: rec.radio.cb Subject: saturday was great Date:
Sun, Dec 5, 2004, 7:26am (EST-1) Organization: Don't Write X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Complaints-To:
Just a quick update for the AKC.
There was recorded telephone conversation
between a "customer" and a keyclown
supplier.
The FCC can do nothing but contact the person. The FCC must personally
witness the infraction prior to ANY action against the offender.
Besides, you broke the law the second you began taping a telephone
conversation without the person's implicit permission and
acknowlegement.
You're not only a hypocrite when it comes to the law, you're an
uninformed hypocrite concerning the laws of the FCC that govern
communications. Educate yourself.

Twist, I *think* you might be mistaken on this

one. The way *I* understand it, it is legal to

tape a telephone conversation as long as one

of the parties is aware it is being taped.



Nope. It is illegal to tape a private conversation without the explicit
permission of the partiy OR parties being taped. In other words, it is
illegal to tape a party without their knowledge.

Basically, it prevents wire-tapping where

neither party is aware. A case in point would

be where a husband who suspects his wife of

cheating tapes her and the guy she is

cheating with, without the knowledge of either.
I know that is illegal, because we had a city

councilman do that here...he wound up getting
federal charges and felony for his

eavesdropping. But, I still think it is legal for a

person to tape another party without telling

them.

I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Wiretapping requires a judges order,,the taping of a conversation a
person is party to does not. If I were to tape your conversation with a
third party, I would be guilty of wiretapping without a judges consent.
If I were to tape a private conversation of you and I on the telephone
without your consent and knowledge, it could not be used or submitted in
a court of law, as it was illegally obtained. One can tape a radio
conversation, as it is not private, but one may not tape a private
telephone conversation. For quick reference and recall of this topic, I
invoke the case of Newt Gingrich having his cell phone conversation
taped in Jacksonville, Fl a few years ago. While the recordings were
made public and covered what were alleged conversations concerning
alleged illegal acts, no action could be taken because of the maner in
whcih the info was obtained,,,,illegally.


Ok, whatever you think, but:

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic
communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A
majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes
based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover
in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia
permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without
informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred
to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the
conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party
consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an
all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties
to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these
referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than
two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a
conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and
could not naturally overhear.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:27923-41B5C689-445
@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net:
Nope. It is illegal to tape a private conversation without the explicit
permission of the partiy OR parties being taped. In other words, it is
illegal to tape a party without their knowledge.

Bull****, you lying sac of man ****, not if the

person doing the taping is part of the

conversation.


LOL,,I checked and rechecked this,,,not only is it illegal, it's a
felony. Once again, get yourself educated.

From:
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:27923-41B5C689-445
@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net:
Nope. It is illegal to tape a private conversation without the explicit
permission of the partiy OR parties being taped. In other words, it is
illegal to tape a party without their knowledge.

better tell that to that woman who taped Bill

Orielly or how bout Linda Tripp or the Scott

Peterson case, no there was no judge

permission beforehand and no they were not

police officers it was recorded without the

other persons knowledge ha ha Tipsy you got

nailed in a lie, now do the crow eating shuffle

LOL

Instead of reaffirming the magnitude of your ignorance in redundant
posts, check the law,,I did. One thing I was wrong about, a judges
signature is NOT needed in Claifornia IF its in relation to law
enforcement when taping a conversation, but a private citizen may not do
so. You are now a felon for your acts of taping a party over the phone
lines (an interstate commerce, making it federal) without their implicit
permission. Better get educated before you wind up in prison. Ignorance
is no excuse for breaking the law.

AKC Master wrote:
Ok, whatever you think, but:

Federal law allows recording of phone calls

and other electronic communications with the

consent of at least one party to the call.


Friendly disagreement here. If that were true, the federal law would
supercede many state laws in this regards.

A majority of the states and territories have

adopted wiretapping statutes based on the

federal law, although most also have extended
the law to cover in-person conversations.


Wiretapping is very different than the mere taping of a conversation.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia
permit individuals to record conversations to

which they are a party without informing the

other parties that they are doing so.


But if federal law supercedes state law (as it always does), then the
other states laws are ng. Here's the difference, right from a LEO's
mouth, with a hypothetical situation:
"If Uncle George touches his underaged niece in an inappropriate manner,
the LEOs may enact a scenario, such as having the niece call the uncle,
and ask "Uncle George, why did you do such a thing?"....and the leos can
tape the call. However, a private party may NOT tape a private telephone
conversation without the other parties strict permission. Let's forget
about ALL other scenarios and focus on the telephone, as this is where
he committed his felony. NO state permits the taping of a private
telephone conversation without the permission of the person being taped.
They MUST be informed when this is doen by a private party. The
telephone system is subject to federal statutes, not state and is
governed by the FCC. Email them and ask them about this law. It's a
felony to record a private party conversation on the telephone without
their permission. Such is the reason for the blacking out of the cell
band on scanners.

These laws are referred to as "one-party

consent" statutes, and as long as you are a

party to the conversation, it is legal for you to

record it



Perhaps,,but not on the telephone.

. (Nevada also has a one-party






consent statute, but the state Supreme Court

has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most

circumstances, the consent of all parties to a

conversation. Those jurisdictions are

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and

Washington. Be aware that you will

sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately

as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more

than two people involved in the conversation,

all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always

.illegal to record a conversation to which you

are not a party, do not have consent to tape,

and could not naturally overhear.


Agree.

Wrong again Tipsy no way you can spin your way out of this one I think
its time for you to eat the crow now LOL

From:
Wrong again Tipsy no way you can spin your

way out of this one I think its time for you to

eat the crow now LOL

Keep wishing and perhaps someone else besides myself shall take pity
upon you.
Go educate yourself. What you claimed you did (taping a private
conversation on the telephone without the other person's knowledge or
informing them you were taping) is a felony. Keep regurgitating your
learned ignorance..after all, it's your right to shout it to the world
day after day.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
AKC Master wrote:
Ok, whatever you think, but:

Federal law allows recording of phone calls

and other electronic communications with the

consent of at least one party to the call.


Friendly disagreement here. If that were true, the federal law would
supercede many state laws in this regards.

A majority of the states and territories have

adopted wiretapping statutes based on the

federal law, although most also have extended
the law to cover in-person conversations.


Wiretapping is very different than the mere taping of a conversation.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia
permit individuals to record conversations to

which they are a party without informing the

other parties that they are doing so.


But if federal law supercedes state law (as it always does), then the
other states laws are ng. Here's the difference, right from a LEO's
mouth, with a hypothetical situation:
"If Uncle George touches his underaged niece in an inappropriate manner,
the LEOs may enact a scenario, such as having the niece call the uncle,
and ask "Uncle George, why did you do such a thing?"....and the leos can
tape the call. However, a private party may NOT tape a private telephone
conversation without the other parties strict permission. Let's forget
about ALL other scenarios and focus on the telephone, as this is where
he committed his felony. NO state permits the taping of a private
telephone conversation without the permission of the person being taped.
They MUST be informed when this is doen by a private party. The
telephone system is subject to federal statutes, not state and is
governed by the FCC. Email them and ask them about this law. It's a
felony to record a private party conversation on the telephone without
their permission. Such is the reason for the blacking out of the cell
band on scanners.


But in the case of scanners, neither party knew they were being heard. And
anyway, that law is very unique, to a unique situation, due to how pervasive
cell phone usage has become, and how that privacy is expected by most users
who don't realize it's actually a radio.


These laws are referred to as "one-party

consent" statutes, and as long as you are a

party to the conversation, it is legal for you to

record it



Perhaps,,but not on the telephone.

. (Nevada also has a one-party






consent statute, but the state Supreme Court

has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most

circumstances, the consent of all parties to a

conversation. Those jurisdictions are

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and

Washington. Be aware that you will

sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately

as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more

than two people involved in the conversation,

all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always

.illegal to record a conversation to which you

are not a party, do not have consent to tape,

and could not naturally overhear.


Agree.


Twist, states CAN make laws that are more restrictive than federal law. What
they cannot do, is take away certain rights. Case in point: It is legal to
drink alcohol in public on Sunday in the eyes of the feds. Some states say
it is illegal. And this is just one case, there are many others. Where did
you get this notion that states laws cannot be more restrictive?