Eavesdropping on your child is illegal!

kashe · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

On 10 Dec 2004 12:29:31 -0800, "Curtis CCR"
wrote:

>Mark wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:55:07 GMT, dragonlady
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article ,
>> > Mark wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:25:33 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> Although I agree this is how it should be - the courts have
>decided otherwise
>> >> in this particular case.
>
>> >This conversation has gotten weird.
>> >
>> >I read the article again, and it does NOT say that a parent
>> >eavesdropping on their child is illegal. The mother in question has
>not
>> >been charged with any crime.
>> >
>> >What the court ruled was that information gathered this way was not
>> >admissable in a court of law in a case involving a third party.
>
>> No, it said her testimony could not be admissible because the
>information she
>> received was obtained by violating the other person's civil rights.
>
>What other person's civil rights? Her daughter's?

Do you enjoy ignoring the fact that there was a third,
unrelated party involved?

> The article leads
>me to believe no such thing. It did not say that her minor daughter
>had any expectation of privacy in the parents' home. This dealt
>strictly with testimony in a criminal matter, and how the information
>from that testimony was obtained. I doubt it cleared the way for the
>daughter to sue her mother. They said the police can't use it.
>
>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.

Archived from group: misc>kids

kashe · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:14:06 GMT, "DeWayne" wrote:

>
>"RHF" wrote in message
>@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> DeWayne,
>>
>> This is a Washington State Supreme Court Ruling that applies 'only' to
>> the 'state of washington' [.]
>>
>> What the good people of the State of Washington should do (need-to-do)
>> is Impeach each-and-everyone of these HIGH and MIGHTY State Supreme
>> Court Judges.
>> [ Send a Message to Their Elected and 'Appointed' Public Officials:
>> "We The People Are In-Charge." ]
>>
>> We did this {Impeached} in the State of California with "Her Majesty"
>> Rose Bird and put these 'little pontifs' On-Notice.
>
>I would like to read the details about this.

Google has already done all your reading for you.

kashe · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:46:26 -0600, "M.S." wrote:

>Under the "For What It's Worth" heading, I heard this in a report on a
>syndicated TV news outlet: "But we should note, federal laws have been
>interpreted to allow parents to record their children's phone calls but
>Washington state's privacy law is more strict.
>
>Gotta love the Left Coast!

At least we can read out here, you jerkoff.

Listening is not recording.

If someone calls you and threatens your life, you can report
what they said to the police.

If you record what they said and take it to the police as
"proof", you have a legal problem.

If, on the other hand, they choose to leave a recording on
what is obviously a recording machine, they have a legal problem. By
speaking to the machine, they have implicitly consented to the
recording and you can use that.

The problem comes in recording _without_ the other party's
consent.

kashe · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:12:13 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
wrote:

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

Not in most states. When you call your bank and they say the
call will be recorded, your only option, if you don't want to have it
recorded, is to hang up. They can say they choose not to speak off the
recording.

Just for fun, tell them your theory and say that you assume
you can also record the conversation. The standard answer is that they
will say, "I can't authorize that." If you continue to record, you are
breaking the law.

You want to talk to them -- they get to set the terms. They
don't have any need to talk to you, so that's your tough luck. If you
insist on recording they will hang up -- no skin off them.

> 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.
>> =====================================================
>

kashe · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:37:36 -0500, Mark wrote:

>On 10 Dec 2004 12:09:43 GMT, gordonb.o8x9m@burditt.org (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. Who's law would apply ?
>
>>In some states, the recording is OK if one of the parties is doing
>>the recording (and therefore knows about it). In others, it's not.
>>ALL parties have to know.
>
>I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. It sounds like you state one
>thing and then contradict yourself.
>
>But, again, recording/wire-tap laws are determined at the federal level. Any
>state laws are superseded by federal law anyway.

Wrong -- Linda Tripp got off scot free when she recorded her
conversation with Monica Lewinsky. In most states, she could have been
prosecuted simply for revealing she made the recording without the
consent of the other party. In New Jersey (or wherever she was)
recording with the knowledge of only one party was legal.

Not sure how admissible it would have been if the second party
was in another state. It might have been admissible in one state, but
not the other.

>
>Just like California has a state law allowing medical pot use. The federal
>government doesn't recognize this law and will prosecute anyone using
>"medical" pot. It's a hot topic. Federal always has and always will take
>precedence over state law.

Read history.

kashe · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:16:03 GMT, "Jeff"
wrote:

>
>"Mike Rosenberg" wrote in message
>%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid...
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> > Spoken by a true non-parent.
>>
>> Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean
>> I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent.
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I dont care.

You obviously cared enough to bring it up when you thought it
would suit your purposes. I guess everyone is supposed to ignore the
comment now that you've proven you haven't the vaguest idea what
you're talking about.

> He obviously is one of the holier than thow types
>and doesnt have a realistic grasp of human nature. I know I am most
>likely quite senior to him and have seen many, many cases of good-
>bad parenting and the results defies his so called pie in the sky attitude
>of parent-child relationships. Human nature or parent child relationships
>are not mathematical equations where 2 +2 = 4 like he desperately
>wants everyone to believe, by his rantings. Quite honestly he comes
>accross as a cross posting lunatic.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004
>

kashe · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 03:19:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

>Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Rosenberg" wrote in message
>> %mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid...
>> > Jeff wrote:
>> >
>> > > Spoken by a true non-parent.
>> >
>> > Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean
>> > I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent.
>> >
>>
>> I dont care. He obviously is one of the holier than thow types
>> and doesnt have a realistic grasp of human nature.
>-----------------
>You mean I'm someone you SHOULD have learned respect for and just
>admitted that I'm someone who had learned more than you and from
>whom you should learn. But you're such an ill-raised little egotist
>that it would damage you emotionally to permit that awareness.
>
>Like most emotionally immature Americans

FOAD, foreign slime.

> you fancy that anyone who
>disagrees with your grunting inability to express yourself at depth,
>or anyone who thinks deeply on an issue, is "unrealistic", which
>actually means that you're alienated from the truth about your
>sick sick culture.

I wouldn't even attempt to parse that piece of lunacy.

>
>
>> I know I am most
>> likely quite senior to him
>-----------------
>Are you over 54? And are you actually mature? I doubt it.
>
>
>> and have seen many, many cases of good-
>> bad parenting and the results defies his so called pie in the sky attitude
>> of parent-child relationships.
>-----------------
>The pie isn't in the sky if you get to eat it, moron.
>The pie is quite tasty for me and MY family, yours is sour grapes!
>
>Don't tell us it can't be done merely because YOU don't
>want to do it the right way!
>
>
>> Human nature or parent child relationships
>> are not mathematical equations where 2 +2 = 4 like he desperately
>> wants everyone to believe, by his rantings.
>--------------------
>The math works just fine for anyone who doesn't have your neurotic
>emotionally defective agenda against accepting it. Abusers always
>want to claim that "ideal methods of treating others don't really
>work" when what they mean is that they couldn't stop themselves
>from misbehaving and abusing others!!
>
>
>> Quite honestly he comes accross as a cross posting lunatic.
>> Jeff
>-----------------------
>Criminals personalities always think juries and judges are insane.
>
>I post here, if others add newsgroups to annoy or attract others,
>I ignore them.
>Steve

kashe · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

On 10 Dec 2004 23:29:51 GMT, MashedTaters wrote:

>In misc.kids 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.
>
>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.

Probably not by itself. It's most likely that the mother could
have informed the cops, who would then set up a court-authorized
wiretap.

Note that in the recent Peterson case, his "special friend"
could not have legally taped their conversations. Had she done so, the
evidence would have been inadmissible. However, she got the cops
involved and the recordings _they_ made were admissible.

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

poboxdc · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:37:36 -0500, Mark wrote:

> >
> >I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. It sounds like you state one
> >thing and then contradict yourself.
> >
> >But, again, recording/wire-tap laws are determined at the federal level. Any
> >state laws are superseded by federal law anyway.
>
> Wrong -- Linda Tripp got off scot free when she recorded her
> conversation with Monica Lewinsky. In most states, she could have been
> prosecuted simply for revealing she made the recording without the
> consent of the other party. In New Jersey (or wherever she was)
> recording with the knowledge of only one party was legal.
>
> Not sure how admissible it would have been if the second party
> was in another state. It might have been admissible in one state, but
> not the other.
>

She lived in Maryland and did break the law. It was a political
decision -- not to prosecute her. Maryland requires that both
parties consent to being recorded.

Another problem with the State of Maryland trying to prosecute
her ..... in the law it is written that she has to know it
is illegal, in order to be found guilty. I know it doesn't
make any sense ......

(KM)

DeWayne · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message @armory.com...
> Da-man wrote:
> --------------------
> PARENTS PATHOLOGICALLY
> LIE, LIE, LIE!!!

Steve obviously has some real mental issues.

M.S. · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

Nothing like a nice, reasoned, intelligent response! Your logic is flawed.
What I posted is a quote from the transcript of the TV news broadcast. It
specifically says "record". Now, if you want to question their broadcast, I
provided a link to where I obtained the quote. Contact them and explain to
them (using your wonderful grasp of grammar and proper English) that they
are wrong and see what their response is. You obviously aren't a lawyer,
and neither am I. However, I do have a somewhat more knowledgeable source
for my post, whereas yours seems to be a personal opinion. And we all know
about opinions.

But that's all I have to say to you on this subject. Like they say:
"Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, you're still retarded."

Bye - Bye!
(plonk!)

wrote in message@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:46:26 -0600, "M.S." wrote:
>
> >Under the "For What It's Worth" heading, I heard this in a report on a
> >syndicated TV news outlet: "But we should note, federal laws have been
> >interpreted to allow parents to record their children's phone calls but
> >Washington state's privacy law is more strict.
> >
> >Gotta love the Left Coast!
>
> At least we can read out here, you jerkoff.
>
> Listening is not recording.
>
> If someone calls you and threatens your life, you can report
> what they said to the police.
>
> If you record what they said and take it to the police as
> "proof", you have a legal problem.
>
> If, on the other hand, they choose to leave a recording on
> what is obviously a recording machine, they have a legal problem. By
> speaking to the machine, they have implicitly consented to the
> recording and you can use that.
>
> The problem comes in recording _without_ the other party's
> consent.
>

RHF · Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 8

BR - They (The Government) DO "Monitor" 'my' Telephone and eMails [.]

[ For 'they' are "US" ]

That is why there are "The Conversations" ;-}
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=10898
..
something to think about ~ RHF
..
..

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

Da-man wrote:
>
> "Jeff" wrote in message
> %Jvd.570506$D%.42794@attbi_s51...
> >
> > This guy is "seriously" whacked in the head. Its obvious he
> > has a major anger
> > problem, along with the delusions of grandeur. He also seems(is) one of
> > those who
> > believe quite simply whatever they "think" to be true,, is true. They call
> > that delusional,
> > or even psychotic. Its scary that this idiot may have actually raised
> > kids...... I also
> > find it interesting he has not answered your requests for "confirmed"
> > contributions
> > to any serious publication and/or book............ Batman maybe, Pschology
> > Today,
> > I dont think so,,,,, Dr. Spock he aint. (its a 50's - 60's) thing.
> > Jeff
-------------
Why are both your sock-puppets talking to each other?

> ANY - person who writes things for books, reference or otherwise OR authors
> a complete book, would/should be glad to reference their works - unless of
> course A) they're ashamed of it B) it doesn't exist in reality C) Their
> works have been proven to be wrong.
------------------
Bzzzt! Guess again!

You're merely posturing and blowing it out your ass.
Steve

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

DeWayne wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
> @armory.com...
> > Da-man wrote:
> > --------------------
> > PARENTS PATHOLOGICALLY
> > LIE, LIE, LIE!!!
>
> Steve obviously has some real mental issues.
----------------
His third sock-puppet.
Steve

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

M.S. wrote:
>
> Actually, Steve, I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints.
-------------
I don't either, check your attributions.

> > We also don't allow sobriety roadblocks and a number of other things,
> > because our privacy laws are more strict than the Federal laws.