That *is* ridiculous.

Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
place using her property

No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:10 -0500, "Dave C." wrote:

As I wrote elsewhere . . .

Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough
to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents
should mind their own business.

Don't have kids, eh?

Two teenagers. I take it you endorse illegally spying on my kids if they
happen to call your kids? If you don't trust your kids to use the phone
responsibly, then keep them off the phone. You don't have to let them use
the phone at all. But if you do, the law dictates that you not spy on them.
So you need to decide whether you trust them or not BEFORE they use the
phone. -Dave

wrote:
Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law

SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
conversation.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."

This is ridiculous. Wonder how this ever got to court in the first
place?

If she isn't going to wiretap anymore, the answer is easy, no phones
for the kids.

Please cite the statute that you are referring to with respect to
consent to monitor or record calls -- I'm quite interested, as it is
relevant to my profession. Otherwise, please see, eg,
http://expertpages.com/news/taping_conversations.htm


The *legalities* in the case of listening in to your child's
conversations, BTW, really refer to the use of the information gathered
in court. (In this case, it appears that mom was going to testify
against the teenager with whom her child was speaking; I'd guess that
the teenager confessed to a crime. Just to keep this in perspective.)
I strongly doubt that any court is otherwise going to opine on the
appropriateness of a parent listening in on his or her kids'
conversations. So, the real questions regarding eavesdropping become
those relating to familial relations and trust.

Barbara

Two teenagers. I take it you endorse illegally spying on my kids if they
happen to call your kids?

If I suspect your troublemakers are in to something that will drag my kid
in
to the mud? You bet your ass I will.

It's not rocket science.

Two problems with that, rocket scientist. First, In the referenced case in
the OP, the mother didn't suspect anything illegal UNTIL SHE BROKE THE LAW
HERSELF. Also, how are you going to protect your kids if you end up in
prison for illegal wire-tapping for spying on someone else's kids?

If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be using
the phone. It's not rocket science. -Dave

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." wrote:

Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?


Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of
employment.

And a minor child has no rights to begin with.



Actually, a minor child does have some rights. It is illegal to eavesdrop
on phone conversations, and there is no exception for age of the people
talking on the phone. Minor children do NOT have the right to talk on the
phone, however. So as I've stated several times, if you don't want to OBEY
THE LAW and let your child's phone conversations be private, then forbid
your children from using the phone. -Dave

Why does a child have an expectation or privacy but an employee does
not? And forget that crap about how you "signed your rights away" when
you joined the company; I've worked plenty of jobs in my life and
never signed such a document, yet I know that my phone calls and email
can be monitored by my remployer at any time. It's a basic right the
employer has - I don't need to sign anything for it to be in effect.

If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can buy her own phone
service. Pre-paid cell phones are widely available - no credit check
required.


Ummm . . . eavesdropping on a telephone conversation is illegal. There is
no exception for employers. If you didn't sign your rights away, then you
have the expectation of privacy when using the phone . . . ANY phone. BTW,
where do YOU work where the employer is stupid enough to not insist that you
sign your rights away?

If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can expect her parents to
OBEY THE LAW, if her parents allow her to use the phone at all. -Dave

His kids are like the kids in "The Sound of Music" - always polite and
respectful to their father, like little military cadets. They never
talk back, they never lie, they never say they're going one place and
really go another... And they never need parental monitoring to keep
them from making poor decisions.

Must be nice.


Well, they do have a good mother, as I chose her very carefully. On a side
note, there was a civil lawsuit in the news recently where a jury awarded
tons of money to a mail-order bride who married a wife-beater. The
judgement was against the dating service that introduced the couple. Most
people seem to think this is OK, as the dating service should have known
that the never-previously-married man was a wife beater. Me, I think if you
are stupid enough to marry someone whom you DON'T KNOW very well, then
that's your own damned fault if it turns out to have been the wrong
decision. Choosing someone to marry (or even whether to marry at all) is
the single biggest decision you will ever make in your life. Choose
sely. -Dave

snip
But back to the original deal. If I think something is going on with my
kids
that isn't right and listening in on a phone call will let me know for
sure -
I'm going to do it. Period.

If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be
using
the phone.

If you were a parent who gave a ****, you'd do things differently. Phone
trust has nothing to do with anything.


When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on
the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not
done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into
at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I
didn't care. As long as I was responsible for him, I did what I thought was
right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys of his own and he admits that he
would have gotten into trouble had I not monitored his actions. If ever the
State thinks they can do a better job than I can as a parent, they are
welcome to take care of my kids, stay up with them all night when they are
sick, walk them to school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and
worry about them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine,
I'll do it my way.

I have to laugh, I think Dave C. is a lawyer. The minute I remove the
phones from my house because I can't trust my kids, then when there is
an emergency and something happens to my minor child, I will be
considered an irresponsible parent because they can't call 911 and I'll
be sued by my kid and the child welfare department. Where is the
common sense here. Parents are responsible for their minor childs
actions.....PERIOD. Parents, do what you must to keep your kids safe!