Eavesdropping on your child is illegal!

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

bpnjensen wrote:
>
> Well, I've certainly been put in my place! Next time my child wants to
> stay home from school for a month to watch the tube, play in the street
> during rush hour or shoot dope, I will just let him do it, because
> that's what friends are for, and parents should never interfere with
> their childrens' freedom, no matter how ill-informed it may be!
> Bruce Jensen
-----------------
Classic.
Count on your kind of fool to exaggerate and miscomprehend completely
anything of value ever told to you.

One: Kids who are loved WANT to go to school.
Two: Rescue is permitted IF you apologize for it.
Three: Actual freedom is never misinformed. The nature of freedom
is that of informing.

You're trying to extract neurotic delinquents raised by idiots like
you and insert them into my recommendations.

That would be about as stupid as expecting you to grasp anything you
haven't thought of yet.

Still, as A.S. Neill showed by his life's work, such neurotic children
as you produce can be reversed simply by the method of honoring what
are their, at first, warped and non-productive motivations. It simply
takes a while for them to realize they are no longer being abused.
Steve

Archived from group: misc>kids

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

Brian Running wrote:
>
> > I'm 54 years old and have a son, 31, and a daughter, 28,
> > you shithead.
>
> No, you're not. No 54-year-old parent, at least one that's not
> institutionalized, would use the language that you do.
-----------------------
Disingenuous.
No one is institutionalized merely because you don't like their
language.

> You're a 19-year-old failing college student.
----------------------------
Nope, sorry. I was born 14 March 1950 at 1:33PM in Quincy, Adams
County, Illinois. Check with the Clerk of the Country Recorder's
Office.
Steve

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

RHF wrote:
>
> RSW,
>
> My My 'you' are a Angry [Little] Person.
>
> Your Mother must have had a very difficult time "Potty Training" you
> Surprised

)
>
> .
> oyhsfb ~ RHF
----------------
You're immature.
Steve

R. Steve Walz · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 1906

RHF wrote:
>
> RSW,
>
> "I told a teacher in 9th grade that if he touched me he wouldn't
> survive."
>
> If we are to 'believe' your statement; then you must believe you are
> justified in Living your Life through Threat and Intimidation . . .
> The Life of a "Bully".
------------------------------
Nope, the life of someone who defends himself and others from abuse.

> just and un-educated {guess} opinion ~ RHF
----------------------------------
Understatement of the year.
Steve

bpnjensen · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

>>>One: Kids who are loved WANT to go to school.
Two: Rescue is permitted IF you apologize for it.
Three: Actual freedom is never misinformed. The nature of freedom
is that of informing.<<<

There is not the tiniest shred of logic in these first two statements
(although my child is quite happy at school). It simply is untrue.
You are either deluded or a liar yourself.

I don't lie to my child. Ever. About anything.

You are the most abusive and arrogant "enlightened" person I have ever
read. You are the kind of person that gives good liberals a bad
name...regardless of whether you are a liberal or not. Further, you do
not have experience of a broad enough nature to make believe that you
are the last word on child-rearing, nor is any other wacko
psychological / psychiatric type (in my experience, which includes some
numbers of these people, they need their own help more than anyone
else, and are generally out-to-lunch). You know nothing and feign
wisdom - and it doesn't work.

Get help. Soon.

Bruce Jensen

RHF · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 8

RSW,

You Exemplify the Power-of-Belief and Self-Anointed-Certitude
Resulting in the "Mister-Know-It-All" : ELITIST Mentality [.]

Some would call it Multi-Dimensional Bull Shiting - Punctuated by:
i,
I.
I !

As a lowly 'common' everyday mister-know-it-all . . .
I am truly in awe of your Professional Standing ;-}
..
so say i - my opinions stated as facts ~ RHF
..
..

Da-man · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

"bpnjensen" wrote in message @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>One: Kids who are loved WANT to go to school.
> Two: Rescue is permitted IF you apologize for it.
> Three: Actual freedom is never misinformed. The nature of freedom
> is that of informing.<<<
>
> There is not the tiniest shred of logic in these first two statements
> (although my child is quite happy at school). It simply is untrue.
> You are either deluded or a liar yourself.
>
> I don't lie to my child. Ever. About anything.
>
> You are the most abusive and arrogant "enlightened" person I have ever
> read. You are the kind of person that gives good liberals a bad
> name...regardless of whether you are a liberal or not. Further, you do
> not have experience of a broad enough nature to make believe that you
> are the last word on child-rearing, nor is any other wacko
> psychological / psychiatric type (in my experience, which includes some
> numbers of these people, they need their own help more than anyone
> else, and are generally out-to-lunch). You know nothing and feign
> wisdom - and it doesn't work.
>
> Get help. Soon.
>
> Bruce Jensen
>

Bruce,

Give up dude, you're only wasting your time arguing with the "self
proclaimed" genius - aka ASS HOLE. We've all seen how he rates. Let him go
to his devices, and get yourself back to your life. Do yourself a favor and
delete his ass.

DM

Eric F. Richards · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

"Rob Cullen" wrote:

> Perhaps if you'd stopped trying to be tough and payed attention you would
> have learned which words need capital letters and which ones do not....
>
> You must be so proud fo yourself.
>

You're wasting your time. RHF only speaks tinfoil-hat english. Many
people have told him how unreadable it is, only to have him insist
that "his is better," or is that "His is Better." Whatever. I find
his posts utterly unreadable.

>
> "RHF" wrote in message
> @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > RSW,
> >
> > "I told a teacher in 9th grade that if he touched me he wouldn't
> > survive."
> >
> > If we are to 'believe' your statement; then you must believe you are
> > justified in Living your Life through Threat and Intimidation . . .
> > The Life of a "Bully".
> >
> > Judging by 'your' Writing and the Tenor of your remarks here;
> > would, in general, reflect this assessment.
> > .
> > just and un-educated {guess} opinion ~ RHF
> > .
> > .
> >
>

--
Eric F. Richards, efricha@dim.com
"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

RHF · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 8

EFR,

At least get it right. . . "tinfoil-hat english" NOT !
..
..
WARNING: Aluminum and Tin Foil Deflector Beanies simply will
NOT get the job done in today's High RFI and EMF Environment.

IASF: Aluminum and Tin Foil are poor substitutes for solid Copper !
..
The Inverted "CK" Antenna (Patent Pending) is the Ultimate
Solution for All Your Cranial Reception and Cerebral
Interference Needs. CAUTION: When Properly Installed Surprised

}
..
"Near Field Mode": "Tune-In-the-Truth"
(What Ever It May Be)
..
- - - A-n-D - - -
"Far Field Mode": "Tune-Out-the-Absurd"
(I Don't Know What You Call It... But I Know It - When I Hear It !)
..
YES- The Inverted "CK" Antenna - For that Rumble Bumble in Your Head !
..
One-Moment-Please:
Time to Check and Adjust my 'Inverted "CK" Antenna'
AHaaa... Now I Am Safe Surprised

)
..
NOTE: With the 'Inverted "CK" Antenna' I have been able to Cut My
MEDs in Half: But they still won't let me use sharp objects yet ;-{
..
OBTW: A Non-Inverted "CK" Antenna when half filled with Ice
makes a great 'Chiller' for a Six-Pak of Beer ;-}
..
cOOPER kETTLE eNGLISH - mAY bE ;-}

..
So Say I ~ RHF
The Inventor of the 'Inverted "CK" Antenna'. {Patient Pending ;-}
..
..

Rob Cullen · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

Perhaps if you'd stopped trying to be tough and payed attention you would
have learned which words need capital letters and which ones do not....

You must be so proud fo yourself.

"RHF" wrote in message @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> RSW,
>
> "I told a teacher in 9th grade that if he touched me he wouldn't
> survive."
>
> If we are to 'believe' your statement; then you must believe you are
> justified in Living your Life through Threat and Intimidation . . .
> The Life of a "Bully".
>
> Judging by 'your' Writing and the Tenor of your remarks here;
> would, in general, reflect this assessment.
> .
> just and un-educated {guess} opinion ~ RHF
> .
> .
>

Eric F. Richards · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

The prosecution rests.

"RHF" wrote:

> EFR,
>
> At least get it right. . . "tinfoil-hat english" NOT !
> .
> .
> WARNING: Aluminum and Tin Foil Deflector Beanies simply will
> NOT get the job done in today's High RFI and EMF Environment.
>
> IASF: Aluminum and Tin Foil are poor substitutes for solid Copper !
> .
> The Inverted "CK" Antenna (Patent Pending) is the Ultimate
> Solution for All Your Cranial Reception and Cerebral
> Interference Needs. CAUTION: When Properly Installed Surprised

}
> .
> "Near Field Mode": "Tune-In-the-Truth"
> (What Ever It May Be)
> .
> - - - A-n-D - - -
> "Far Field Mode": "Tune-Out-the-Absurd"
> (I Don't Know What You Call It... But I Know It - When I Hear It !)
> .
> YES- The Inverted "CK" Antenna - For that Rumble Bumble in Your Head !
> .
> One-Moment-Please:
> Time to Check and Adjust my 'Inverted "CK" Antenna'
> AHaaa... Now I Am Safe Surprised

)
> .
> NOTE: With the 'Inverted "CK" Antenna' I have been able to Cut My
> MEDs in Half: But they still won't let me use sharp objects yet ;-{
> .
> OBTW: A Non-Inverted "CK" Antenna when half filled with Ice
> makes a great 'Chiller' for a Six-Pak of Beer ;-}
> .
> cOOPER kETTLE eNGLISH - mAY bE ;-}
>
> .
> So Say I ~ RHF
> The Inventor of the 'Inverted "CK" Antenna'. {Patient Pending ;-}
> .
> .

--
Eric F. Richards, efricha@dim.com
"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

Rob Cullen · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

Those winter evenings must just fly by...

"RHF" wrote in message @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> EFR,
>
> At least get it right. . . "tinfoil-hat english" NOT !
> .
> .
> WARNING: Aluminum and Tin Foil Deflector Beanies simply will
> NOT get the job done in today's High RFI and EMF Environment.
>
> IASF: Aluminum and Tin Foil are poor substitutes for solid Copper !
> .
> The Inverted "CK" Antenna (Patent Pending) is the Ultimate
> Solution for All Your Cranial Reception and Cerebral
> Interference Needs. CAUTION: When Properly Installed Surprised

}
> .
> "Near Field Mode": "Tune-In-the-Truth"
> (What Ever It May Be)
> .
> - - - A-n-D - - -
> "Far Field Mode": "Tune-Out-the-Absurd"
> (I Don't Know What You Call It... But I Know It - When I Hear It !)
> .
> YES- The Inverted "CK" Antenna - For that Rumble Bumble in Your Head !
> .
> One-Moment-Please:
> Time to Check and Adjust my 'Inverted "CK" Antenna'
> AHaaa... Now I Am Safe Surprised

)
> .
> NOTE: With the 'Inverted "CK" Antenna' I have been able to Cut My
> MEDs in Half: But they still won't let me use sharp objects yet ;-{
> .
> OBTW: A Non-Inverted "CK" Antenna when half filled with Ice
> makes a great 'Chiller' for a Six-Pak of Beer ;-}
> .
> cOOPER kETTLE eNGLISH - mAY bE ;-}
>
> .
> So Say I ~ RHF
> The Inventor of the 'Inverted "CK" Antenna'. {Patient Pending ;-}
> .
> .
>

Curtis CCR · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

Dan Lanciani wrote:

> In article ,
curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (Curtis CCR) writes:

> | Dan Lanciani wrote:
> | > In article
,
> | curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (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
>

Dan Lanciani · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

In article , curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (Curtis CCR) writes:
| Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|
| > In article ,
| curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (Curtis CCR) writes:
|
| > | Dan Lanciani wrote:
| > | > In article
| ,
| > | curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (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