DeWayne wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Da-man wrote:

Bombs are ok?
------------
Some.

So what bombs are ok genius?
-----------------
The ones used on **** like you, of course.
Steve

Da-man wrote:

WOW... this idiot proves my point more - every time he speaks..... Maybe all
should delete his ass - I have!
-------------
Liar.


I'm only seeing his stupid crap via other's
messages. He seriously appears to be showing signs of needing some help. Ya
got to love it. To summarize - He chastised - no - make that defamed,
libeled - others who he didn't know - publicly calling them Child Abusers -
claiming them to be bad parents. Suggested "most" parents are bad.
---------------------
They ARE!


Then he
says "bombs" are ok?
----------------------
Don't you think some are? Really? How about the ones we drop on
Fallujah?


Especially when it was said in the context of kids
having them in his initial inference - uprising against the parents! He
thinks allowing teens to be screwing in the next room is ok - it is a
controlled atmosphere so to speak!
----------------------
Is there something wrong with sex, in the next room or in the living
room, I see no problem with it.


He thinks children are proper in uprising
against their parents! Man... He really showed his "professionalism" there.
------------------------
What's this "professional" baloney of yours.
Everybody gets paid for something.


NOT! Yes, I'd say he has dug his grave with showing his sincere lack of
professionalism and more so - moral character.
--------------------------
What you think is sex, "immoral" *I* say is MORAL!


As to being a writer or
contributor to books regarding parenting, moral values or whatever the hell
the specialty was to have been - I'd have to suggest it sounds like all
talk - er uh make that Bull ****. For all we know, it may have been nothing
more than a few recipes for a fund raiser cook book. "Maybe" he is
brilliant - I'll give him that inkling of benefit of doubt.
-----------------------------
You're blathering.


It wouldn't be
the first time a "brilliant" person has gone goofy.... Case histories are
many. Then too, there is nothing to suggest that "brilliant" people are the
"best" parents - either.
--------------------------
Pop Anti-Intellectual Wish-Fulfillment Nonsense.


There are many issues in our society to which there
are no quick or easy answers.
----------------------
Global warming, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, etc.


This man - claiming to be professional -
-----------------------
Professional means what, that I'm PAID for something? So ****ing what?


speaking out in his own - so called beliefs and experiences
------------
Gee, what else SHOULD I call them, dip****!?


- sure is not
presenting any "realistic" answers to the problems.
---------------
You mean the brand from Radio Shack?
Of course they'r realistic, it's simply YOU who are not, which
is WHY these problems exist!


He instead casts blame
to anyone he sees fit - even those he knows absolutely nothing about -
accusing them of a serious crime which "he" can't prove has happened.
----------------------------
You're blathering wildly again.


Then,
condoning the use of drugs,
-------------------
Some drugs, sometime.


bombs,
--------------
The right bombs in the right place, at the right time.


teen sex - all the things which are a
large part of the problem of our society.
----------------------
Sex isn't a problem, you **** are.


Signs of a truly confused person.
----------------------
You mean you.


Yessiree, he has been deleted...... Not only in my computer but it would
appear in his own moral values as well.

DM
----------------------
Liar.
Steve

Dan Lanciani wrote:


In article . com,
(Curtis CCR) writes:

| Dan Lanciani wrote:
| In article
.com,
| (Curtis CCR) writes:
| [...]
| | In California, any phone call going over the public network
| | cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH
parties.
|
| [...]
| | The restrictions extend to the call center operations here too.
| | Customers hear "your call may be monitored or recorded..." The
| | montoring system records all calls on the customer service reps
| phone,
| | as well as what they are doing on their computer during the
call.
| In
| | addition to the line for call queues, there is also a line for
the
| CSR
| | to use for direct incoming calls or to make outgoing calls.
The
| | monitoring system records all calls on the CSR's phone
regardless
| of
| | what line is used.
| |
| | When recordings are reviewed by management, they are always
| reviewed by
| | two people. The privacy policy requires that as soon as they
| identify
| | anything they hear as personal or otherwise not related to
customer
| | service, they stop listening and move on. The direct line on
the
| CSR
| | phone does not have a monitoring notice so the privacy has to
be
| | extended to third party.
|
| Are you saying that they do record the direct line even though
there
| is
| no notice to the person on the other end? If that is the case,
| hasn't the
| law already been violated even if the people reviewing the tapes
try
| to
| avoid listening to "personal" content?
|
| Nope. It works out because of the way the law is written. The
| recording connection to the phone is authorized, and they don't
listen
| to personal communications.

I'm still a little confused about this. First, just to clarify, they
do
record the direct line without notice to or consent of the person on
the
other end, right?

Yes. It's a physical wiretap. Though multiple lines appear on the
phone, there is only one pair of wires going to it. The system
phyically taps those wires and records everything.

The primary purpose of the tap is to record incoming call center calls
to the customer service rep. The other calls are recorded are, I guess
you could say, a by-product of the legitimate wire tap.

No, unless the agent advises whoever he is taking to on the "direct"
line that the call may be recorded, the second party does not know.

So are you saying that the two-party-consent requirement
applies only to personal communications and that it is ok to record
everything
as long as you don't listen to the personal parts?

No, I said no such thing. The calls coming into the the customer
service agent on the call center lines have an announcement that the
call may be recorded.

The elements of the California wiretap law say that it's a crime to
make an unauthorized tap, or, in an unauthorized manner and without
consent of all parties, attempt to learn the contents of a confidential
communication. First, the wiretap is authorized and the employees
knows his phone is tapped. Second, no attempt is made to learn the
contents of any confidential (personal) calls. If they come up during
a review, as soon as it is known they are no-notice calls, the playback
is stopped and the review moves to the next call.

Who exactly is authorized
to make the personal/non-personal distinction?

The persons that are authorized to review calls. They don't work for
me, nor do I operate the call monitoring system. I cannot say what
position these people hold.

In California, am I as an
individual allowed to record all of my phone conversations without
notice to
the other party as long as I review only the non-personal parts?

If you want to record your phone calls without giving notice, you
should consult an attorney about the legalities of it. As non-attorney
I would say no. I suppose you could record all of your calls without
notice, but then you couldn't allow anyone else to listen to those
recordings.

Go back to what I originally described. The only recordings here that
are reviewed are those that come in on the CSR's call center line.
Those calls have notice to all parties that they may be recorded.

ddl@danlan.*com

In article .com, (Curtis CCR) writes:
| Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|
| In article . com,
| (Curtis CCR) writes:
|
| | Dan Lanciani wrote:
| | In article
| .com,
| | (Curtis CCR) writes:
| | [...]
| | | In California, any phone call going over the public network
| | | cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH
| parties.
| |
| | [...]
| | | The restrictions extend to the call center operations here too.
| | | Customers hear "your call may be monitored or recorded..." The
| | | montoring system records all calls on the customer service reps
| | phone,
| | | as well as what they are doing on their computer during the
| call.
| | In
| | | addition to the line for call queues, there is also a line for
| the
| | CSR
| | | to use for direct incoming calls or to make outgoing calls.
| The
| | | monitoring system records all calls on the CSR's phone
| regardless
| | of
| | | what line is used.
| | |
| | | When recordings are reviewed by management, they are always
| | reviewed by
| | | two people. The privacy policy requires that as soon as they
| | identify
| | | anything they hear as personal or otherwise not related to
| customer
| | | service, they stop listening and move on. The direct line on
| the
| | CSR
| | | phone does not have a monitoring notice so the privacy has to
| be
| | | extended to third party.
| |
| | Are you saying that they do record the direct line even though
| there
| | is
| | no notice to the person on the other end? If that is the case,
| | hasn't the
| | law already been violated even if the people reviewing the tapes
| try
| | to
| | avoid listening to "personal" content?
| |
| | Nope. It works out because of the way the law is written. The
| | recording connection to the phone is authorized, and they don't
| listen
| | to personal communications.
|
| I'm still a little confused about this. First, just to clarify, they
| do
| record the direct line without notice to or consent of the person on
| the
| other end, right?
|
| Yes. It's a physical wiretap. Though multiple lines appear on the
| phone, there is only one pair of wires going to it. The system
| phyically taps those wires and records everything.
|
| The primary purpose of the tap is to record incoming call center calls
| to the customer service rep. The other calls are recorded are, I guess
| you could say, a by-product of the legitimate wire tap.

Is the fact that the other recordings are made as a by-product of the
legitimate tap dispositive of their legality? That is, if you made
the exact same recordings by deliberate choice would the situation
change?

| No, unless the agent advises whoever he is taking to on the "direct"
| line that the call may be recorded, the second party does not know.

If this is acceptable, it appears to contradict your prior statement that:

``In California, any phone call going over the public network
cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH
parties.''

since there is an ''or'' between ''monitored'' and ''recorded''.
(assuming the calls are going out over the public network)

At least I think that was your statement if I'm not confusing the
attributions.

| So are you saying that the two-party-consent requirement
| applies only to personal communications and that it is ok to record
| everything
| as long as you don't listen to the personal parts?
|
| No, I said no such thing.

I didn't mean to imply that you said it; I was merely proposing the only
possible way I could see reconcile your seemingly contradictory statements.
I apologize for using the ``So are you saying'' structure.

| The calls coming into the the customer
| service agent on the call center lines have an announcement that the
| call may be recorded.

Yes, I understand. I am not talking about those calls. I am talking about
the calls on the direct line that have no announcement and are recorded without
the consent of the party on the other end.

| The elements of the California wiretap law say that it's a crime to
| make an unauthorized tap, or, in an unauthorized manner and without
| consent of all parties, attempt to learn the contents of a confidential
| communication. First, the wiretap is authorized and the employees
| knows his phone is tapped.

Does the fact that one party knows his phone is tapped have any bearing
on the requirement that the other party consent?

| Second, no attempt is made to learn the
| contents of any confidential (personal) calls.

I don't believe that it is plausible to equate personal and confidential in
this way. Clearly it is possible to have confidential business calls. Of
course, without the definition of ``confidential'' it is impossible to know
what the law as you state it means. On the other hand, any definition of
``confidential'' that allows one party to the call (or even a third party)
to make the determination that something is not ``confidential'' would pretty
much defeat the all-party requirement.

| If they come up during
| a review, as soon as it is known they are no-notice calls, the playback
| is stopped and the review moves to the next call.

This seems a bit different from what you said before, but I'm still not
completely clear on the procedure. Do they stop playing *all* calls
that were made on the no-notice line or only no-notice calls where
something personal/confidential came up?

| Who exactly is authorized
| to make the personal/non-personal distinction?
|
| The persons that are authorized to review calls. They don't work for
| me, nor do I operate the call monitoring system. I cannot say what
| position these people hold.

I didn't mean the specific people at your company. I meant who in general
is authorized by the law to make such determinations?

| In California, am I as an
| individual allowed to record all of my phone conversations without
| notice to
| the other party as long as I review only the non-personal parts?
|
| If you want to record your phone calls without giving notice, you
| should consult an attorney about the legalities of it.

I don't want to record my calls and I don't live in California. It
was a hypothetical question intended to explore any possible distinction
in the law that might give more latitude to businesses than to individuals.

| As non-attorney
| I would say no. I suppose you could record all of your calls without
| notice, but then you couldn't allow anyone else to listen to those
| recordings.

Interesting. I don't think this is the case in some other all-party-consent
states.

| Go back to what I originally described.

I have, several times. But I'm still unable to reconcile all of your
statements.

| The only recordings here that
| are reviewed are those that come in on the CSR's call center line.
| Those calls have notice to all parties that they may be recorded.

Ok, I think that answers the question I raised above about whether they
stop listening to all no-notice calls or only to no-notice calls where
something personal/confidential comes up. However, I still believe that
making the recording of the no-notice call in the first place is inconsistent
with the statement:

``In California, any phone call going over the public network
cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH
parties.''

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

``In California, any phone call going over the public network
cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH
parties.''


That law is against Federal Wiretapping Laws.
Person may be recorded if one party is aware.

Federal Laws always override state laws.

The California law is invaild. The prosecutor could appeal that
decision and claim the Federal law overwrite state law.


What about the other law?
You are support to report a crime if you overhear it or see it?
There is a conflict of laws here

Greg R