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?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

In article ,
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:00:51 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is
the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone.

My kids are now all 18 and older, and I have not stopped caring.

I'm glad to no longer be "on the hook", but I still care passionately.
If I thought invading their privacy at this point would serve any useful
purpose, I'd do it.

You gotta draw the line at some point. Where will that be for you?

Caring? Never. My mom still cares about what *I'm* doing, and I'm 52.


In other cases, the parents CAN still be held responsible no matter how
old the "kid" is -- for example, if my car or house are found to have
illegal drugs in them, I could still be fined or have my property
confiscated, even if I didn't know they were there.

That's only a problem if you plan to have your adult children still
living in your home as opposed to away at college or on their own. If
they are at college but they stay with you during semester breaks and
over the summer, then I would consider them not yet fully adult and
continue to monitor them as necessary.

Two of my adult children DO still live with me, because I can't afford
to send them to 4 year colleges. They live at home, and attend a local
community college -- and I support them, as do many parents of college
age kids.


I'm one of those "bleeding heart liberals" (though I much prefer to
think of myself as progressive). The only thing I find offensive about
your statement is that you stopped caring. I don't think I'll EVER stop
caring!

I never said I'd stop caring about the kids, I said I'd stop caring
what they were talking about on the phone - unless they gave me
probable cause to be suspicious, of course.

You SAID you stopped caring about what they were doing once their
behavior would no longer put you on the hook legally. Now you're saying
that, if they gave you cause to be suspicious, you'd still care enough
to eavesdrop. Can't have it both ways -- and I'm saying that, if I
thought listening in on their phone calls now would be helpful in any
way, I'd still do it.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In misc.kids 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.

Wow. That's rather across the board.

One special case comes to mind. What if the teenager is emotionally
handicapped?

I know of a fetal alcohol syndrom girl. Her adopted mother occassionally
listened to her phone conversations.

The girl had no mainstream friends. She did have a number of friends
she met at special functions (Special Olympics, a special bowling
league). These friends were spread throughout the city or region
and weren't "in the flesh" except during the events. So the phone was
critical to this girl's social life. That's how she stayed in touch
with friends.

By picking up the phone one day, the mom found out a 30'ish man was
calling her daughter regularly. The man was asking her daughter about
condoms, where they were going to meet, etc.

So I guess that conversation couldn't be used to convict a guy of
statutory rape or child molestation.

That's ... not believable. There must be some clause that's
not being mentioned.

Byron Canfield wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mark wrote:
I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from
the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other kid
admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else say,
and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay -
inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained.

Well, I think you hit on it. The AP article (and the original poster of the
thread) made a distinct point of misquoting the court case in order to
create a sensational headline, solely for the purpose of riling everybody.

Oh?

Well, I posted this and here are the AP headers and 1st paragraph:

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.

(KM)

In article ,
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:10:28 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

You gotta draw the line at some point. Where will that be for you?

Caring? Never. My mom still cares about what *I'm* doing, and I'm 52.

At some point a parent has to let go and stop trying to micromanage
their childrens' lives. I guess with some parents that occurs after
the parent's death.

Why, in your mind, does "caring" equal "micromanging" -- or, for that
matter, ANY managing?

I can detach with love -- that means I keep caring, but acknowledge that
they are in charge of their own lives. I CAN control MY decisions, and
that might mean, for example, no longer paying for college if they don't
take it seriously enough to finish classes. But that isn't an attempt
to control what THEY do -- just making clear boundaries: as long as
they are in school, and taking school seriously, I will cover books,
tuition and fees, keep them in transportation, and provide free room and
board. If they STOP going to school, they can provide their own
transportation and, if they want to live here, pay room and board.

Recently, I've had to make clear that if they choose to NOT live at
home, I will NOT give them money for ongoing living expenses. I can
afford to cover that if they are living here, but we don't have extra
money to cover their rent, utilities, etc. living somewhere else.


You SAID you stopped caring about what they were doing once their
behavior would no longer put you on the hook legally. Now you're saying
that, if they gave you cause to be suspicious, you'd still care enough
to eavesdrop.

IF I have reason to suspect that they are, for example, using illegal
drugs in my home or one of my vehicles, then I will certainly do
whatever is necessary to protect myself. In the absence of any reason
to suspect such things, however, I won't waste my time eavesdropping
on their boring conversations.

I'm saying that, if I
thought listening in on their phone calls now would be helpful in any
way, I'd still do it.

So if you thought your daughter was dating a "bad boy" type who was no
good for her, you'd eavesdrop on their phone conversations and try to
intervene?

Not me. Some things people just have to learn for themselves.

Where on earth did I say THAT?

When I say "if I thought it would help", I'm talking about finding out
they are into things like illegal drugs (using and/or selling),
stealing, unsafe sex -- basically, things that are illegal or could kill
them -- and I believed that violating their privacy would provide me
with the kind of information I needed to intervene.

I DID intervene when a 21 yo "bad boy" started hanging around my younger
daughter when she was 14, but I smelled a predator (accurately, as it
turned out) and he is now in prison on a variety of charges related to
his activities with minors. I was desperately trying to keep her safe
from this jerk.

However, other than that, I have NEVER tried to control who my kids are
friends with, even when I think their friends are bad for them. And
they HAVE made some astoundingly bad choices in friends! The most I've
done is tried to make sure they spend lots of time in places healthy for
them, so they'd have an opportunity to make good friends, too -- places
like the theater program they all enjoyed, and church, which they ALSO
enjoyed.

Heck, for a while, one of my kids dated a young man who lived under a
bridge. He had lots of problems. I invited him for dinner as often as
he wanted to eat with us, and, when he was VERY ill, allowed him to
sleep in our house (on the sofa!) for a couple of weeks. (I had, at one
point, allowed him to stay for a few weeks while he was waiting to get
into transitional housing; however, when a room became available, he
decided he didn't want the amount of structure required to live there,
so I threw him out.) I did not "approve" of their relationship, but I
also knew that if she wanted to see him, she would -- I figured if I
kept them close, it would be better all around. Unfortunately, his
going away present to her was a case of Hepatitis B.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

wrote in message
...
Byron Canfield wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mark wrote:
I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from
the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other
kid
admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else
say,
and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay -
inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained.

Well, I think you hit on it. The AP article (and the original poster of
the
thread) made a distinct point of misquoting the court case in order to
create a sensational headline, solely for the purpose of riling
everybody.

Oh?

Well, I posted this and here are the AP headers and 1st paragraph:

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.

--which confirms my statement, as it is made clear, later in the article
that the AP summation is extrapolating, rather than quoting the court
decision; that the court merely ruled that evidence collected in that manner
was inadmissible in court..


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Bill Crocker wrote:

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.
---------------
In California as in many states both ends of any conversation
must agree to be taped.
Steve

Mark wrote:

On 10 Dec 2004 12:09:43 GMT, (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.
[]
But, again, recording/wire-tap laws are determined at the federal level. Any
state laws are superseded by federal law anyway.
-----------------------------------------
Nope. TV-mythology. Even the federal courts have to award warrants
congizant of state laws in which they are applied.
Steve

Mark wrote:

On 10 Dec 2004 13:18:54 GMT, (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.

Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a
recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
made.

Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.

Incorrect. It's a federal determination (wire tap). Local state regulations
cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in
California.

Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be")
in different states.

No, federal supersedes local. Always has and always will.
----------------
Nope. TV-mythology.
Steve

Mark wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:32:50 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:14 -0500, Mark wrote:

On 10 Dec 2004 13:18:54 GMT, (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.

Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a
recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
made.

Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.

Incorrect. It's a federal determination (wire tap). Local state regulations
cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in
California.

Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be")
in different states.

No, federal supersedes local. Always has and always will.

It all comes down to this.

Everything I've ever heard on this subject suggests that Gordon is
correct.

While states may impose their own laws IN ADDITION to federal laws, they
cannot put a law on the books that contradicts federal law.

Look at all the mess going on now with gay marriage and trying to make a
constitutional amendment. That would eliminate any/all state laws that say
it's OK.
----------------------
State rights vs federal subsumption is more complex than merely the
word: "contradicts". The State cannot forbid that which is subsumed
under the federal assurance of human rights or any and all high court
interpretations of that effect, and of the commercial effects of
over-reaching federal law, but things not so directly banned by
federal aegis are game for state control.
Steve