Eavesdropping on your child is illegal!

ajpdla · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 14

"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com on Fri, 10
> Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:
>
>>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.
>
> That's bullshit.
>
> It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!

Nice try, but not true.

Archived from group: misc>kids

poboxdc · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

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."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
to the mother's testimony.

"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of
individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability
to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of
encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
=====================================================

Penny · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 5

Thought for the day...When your child who is under 18 commits a crime
and that crime cost somebody $$$'s, does the kid pay? Or does the
parent pay? Is the state willing to pay the legal fees? If a parent
can't eaves drop on a minor child, when they believe their child is
doing something illegal or unnacceptable, in their home that they are
paying for and the phone that they are paying for, then the state
shouldn't hold the parent financially accountable. THAT'S my ever so
humble GOOD parent opinion. Carmen, right or wrong...I would have done
the same thing...

larrybud2002 · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 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.

Bill Crocker · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. In this case, if the
son was talking to a friend, and mom was monitoring, or recording, then it
would not be legal.

Problem now is, her son may have won the battle, but mom will win the war.

Bill Crocker

wrote in message @plainview.net...
> 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."
>
> The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
> friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
> because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
> justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
> who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
> to the mother's testimony.
>
> "The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of
> individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability
> to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote.
>
> That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
> individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.
>
> "I don't think the state should be in the position of
> encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
> on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
> filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
> American Civil Liberties Union.
>
> Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
> massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
> whereabouts are unknown.
>
> Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
> conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
> she'll stop that now.
>
> "If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
> =====================================================

Barbara · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 361

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

shanajack2003 · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

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!

Dave C. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

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. This ruling is right and just. It is also
surprising, as courts rarely rule on the side of common sense. -Dave

Dave C. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

> 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. For the same thing to happen in a mother/child relationship,
the legal documents would have to be signed by an embryo. -Dave

Dave C. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

> 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

Renee · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 41

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

This went to court because it was a trial for the boyfriend who was
accused of snatching purses. The mother, herself, was never on trial. I
don't even think it says that parents can get into trouble for
monitoring their kids phonecalls. Just that any information heard can't
be entered as evidence if their kid or someone they are talking to
admits over the phone to doing a crime.

Renee

Dave C. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

"Mark" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> 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

Dave C. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

>>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

Dave C. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> 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

Dave C. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

> 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