3 ms·

This makes much more sense. Still... I should be able to record my own phone calls, right? I think by picking up a phone you should be ready to be recorded espe

by skizm 14y ago

This makes much more sense. Still... I should be able to record my own phone calls, right? I think by picking up a phone you should be ready to be recorded especially as a police officer/prominent public figure.

powertower 14y ago
It varies by state law if you need to inform the other party of the recording being made, and what you can do with it afterwards... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws
_delirium 14y ago
It's something of a relic of early-20th-c debates on wiretapping. Some states came to the conclusion that it's "wiretapping" unless both sides of a conversation agree, which has a certain privacy-law type feel to it. In other states, it's only wiretapping if you're doing it unbeknownst to both participants, which is closer to the normal definition of wiretapping, looking more at the "sneaking onto a phone line you don't belong on" aspect rather than privacy concerns. It can produce some oddities in companies as well. It's now assumed that a corporation can read employees' email, for example, or record their internet or IM traffic. But in a two-party-consent state, it would be illegal for your employer to record telephone calls made from your office phone, unless they get the consent of each person you talk to.
- mikeash 14y ago
  > But in a two-party-consent state, it would be illegal for your employer to record telephone calls made from your office phone, unless they get the consent of each person you talk to. My understanding is that the most restrictive state applies, so you don't even have to be in a two-party state, you just need to be calling one. In any case, this is why every call center you talk to says "this call may be recorded" when you first connect. It's not just a courtesy!
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    I've been told the opposite. If your call is interstate, then federal rules (one party consent) apply.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      According to this page, it's not 100% clear or consistent, but the more restrictive state's laws applying is definitely a possibility: http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/interstate-phone-calls http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/interstate-phone-calls
mseebach 14y ago
There's should and there's the law. More relevant here, is 21 years for recording a phone call a just sentence?
- tptacek 14y ago
  He hasn't been sentenced, nor is there any real chance that he faces a year in prison, let alone 21.
  - crafter 14y ago
    How would you know what his chances are? You don't. No one does. It's a crap shoot (and a rediculous charge).
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I'm going to go ahead and answer your first question with the obvious question: "what is the longest anyone has ever been imprisoned for recording a police officer?"
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
csense 14y ago
> I should be able to record my own phone calls, right? In most states, only one person needs to be aware that the conversation is being recorded. His conduct would have been completely legal in the majority of the US. [1] It seems like 21 years is a very harsh sentence for conduct that isn't physically dangerous and isn't even illegal in the majority of the US. I seem to remember reading or hearing somewhere that police departments actually like the rule used by most states, "recording is legal as long as at least one participant in the conversation knows about it." This makes gathering evidence in investigations a lot easier because you can record everything without a warrant. If we suppose the world consists of "criminals," "informants," and "police," and police and informants always know about their own recording devices, then criminal-to-criminal calls are the only case that needs a warrant in a state with one-party notification. Informant-to-criminal and police-to-criminal can legally be recorded without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any basis whatsoever in such states. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Unite...

by skizm 14y ago

powertower 14y ago

It varies by state law if you need to inform the other party of the recording being made, and what you can do with it afterwards... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws

_delirium 14y ago

It's something of a relic of early-20th-c debates on wiretapping. Some states came to the conclusion that it's "wiretapping" unless both sides of a conversation agree, which has a certain privacy-law type feel to it. In other states, it's only wiretapping if you're doing it unbeknownst to both participants, which is closer to the normal definition of wiretapping, looking more at the "sneaking onto a phone line you don't belong on" aspect rather than privacy concerns. It can produce some oddities in companies as well. It's now assumed that a corporation can read employees' email, for example, or record their internet or IM traffic. But in a two-party-consent state, it would be illegal for your employer to record telephone calls made from your office phone, unless they get the consent of each person you talk to.

mikeash 14y ago
> But in a two-party-consent state, it would be illegal for your employer to record telephone calls made from your office phone, unless they get the consent of each person you talk to. My understanding is that the most restrictive state applies, so you don't even have to be in a two-party state, you just need to be calling one. In any case, this is why every call center you talk to says "this call may be recorded" when you first connect. It's not just a courtesy!
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I've been told the opposite. If your call is interstate, then federal rules (one party consent) apply.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    According to this page, it's not 100% clear or consistent, but the more restrictive state's laws applying is definitely a possibility: http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/interstate-phone-calls http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/interstate-phone-calls

mseebach 14y ago

There's should and there's the law. More relevant here, is 21 years for recording a phone call a just sentence?

tptacek 14y ago
He hasn't been sentenced, nor is there any real chance that he faces a year in prison, let alone 21.
- crafter 14y ago
  How would you know what his chances are? You don't. No one does. It's a crap shoot (and a rediculous charge).
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I'm going to go ahead and answer your first question with the obvious question: "what is the longest anyone has ever been imprisoned for recording a police officer?"

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

csense 14y ago

> I should be able to record my own phone calls, right? In most states, only one person needs to be aware that the conversation is being recorded. His conduct would have been completely legal in the majority of the US. [1] It seems like 21 years is a very harsh sentence for conduct that isn't physically dangerous and isn't even illegal in the majority of the US. I seem to remember reading or hearing somewhere that police departments actually like the rule used by most states, "recording is legal as long as at least one participant in the conversation knows about it." This makes gathering evidence in investigations a lot easier because you can record everything without a warrant. If we suppose the world consists of "criminals," "informants," and "police," and police and informants always know about their own recording devices, then criminal-to-criminal calls are the only case that needs a warrant in a state with one-party notification. Informant-to-criminal and police-to-criminal can legally be recorded without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any basis whatsoever in such states. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Unite...