Thread View: sci.crypt
6 messages
6 total messages
Started by Lawrence V. Cipriani
Sun, 18 Oct 1987 15:04
phone taps
Author: Lawrence V. Cipriani
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1987 15:04
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1987 15:04
13 lines
1074 bytes
1074 bytes
When a friend of mine applied for a job with Northrup he asked me to be a reference. I never heard from anyone at Northrup, but on a couple of occasions there were audible 'beeps' on my phone line. A similar thing happened when another friend got a job at Mitre (inventors of the AWACS). I don't have call waiting or any other special phone features. My understanding of the law is that a phone conversation can be recorded if the recorder asks for permissions, or if audible 'beeps' are made a few times. Does anyone know for certain what the law says? Larry Cipriani tut!lvc
Re: phone taps
Author: John Moore
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1987 23:52
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1987 23:52
16 lines
1168 bytes
1168 bytes
In article <509@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: > >My understanding of the law is that a phone conversation >can be recorded if the recorder asks for permissions, or >if audible 'beeps' are made a few times. Does anyone know This is a common misconception. As far as federal law goes, the call may be recorded just one party agrees, and the other party need not be notified. You may record any call that you participate in, as may the other party. -- John Moore (NJ7E) (602) 861-7607 (day or evening) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
Re: phone taps
Author: Bob Bickford
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1987 11:21
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1987 11:21
38 lines
2732 bytes
2732 bytes
John Moore writes:
>Lawrence V. Cipriani writes:
>>
>>My understanding of the law is that a phone conversation
>>can be recorded if the recorder asks for permissions, or
>>if audible 'beeps' are made a few times. Does anyone know
>
> This is a common misconception. As far as federal law goes,
>the call may be recorded just one party agrees, and the other
>party need not be notified. You may record any call that you
>participate in, as may the other party.
Of course, as stated, this is the FEDERAL law. And thus is
applicable generally only to INTERSTATE calls. Many states (such
as California) have different laws; in particular, many require
ALL participants in a call to be informed of the recording AND/OR
the presence of audible 'beeps' on the line. (If memory serves,
California requires at least one of the above, and they seem to
lean heavily towards the beeps.) Of course, these laws are applicable
generally only to INTRASTATE calls. (Yeah, I know the definitions
get real fuzzy here in places, but what do you expect from politicians?)
None of the laws, so far as I am aware, make it illegal for you
to record your own calls, with or without informing anybody. I recall
a court case on the issue where the case was dropped because they
realized he hadn't, technically, violated any law. But these laws do
make it illegal for somebody else to record your calls (a "third party")
and they do make recordings not made in accordance with their requirements
inadmissable as evidence. Also, I believe there are some obscure laws
making it possible for you to sue any "public employee" (whatever that
might mean....) if they record their conversation with you and fail to
adhere to these requirements. (This last might only be a federal law;
I don't recall just now where I saw it.... sorry.)
--
Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab
/-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
| Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President |
\-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/
Re: phone taps
Author: robert
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1987 19:03
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1987 19:03
8 lines
881 bytes
881 bytes
i thought that it was "legal" for NSA and others to monitor digital traffic in the domestic realm...the fun was to digitize conversations (like most cellular and fibre optical trunks) and then legally monitor the conversations, being now digital traffic... see bamford's the puzzle palace
Re: phone taps
Author: Rob Horn
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1987 18:43
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1987 18:43
16 lines
1181 bytes
1181 bytes
In article <4280@well.UUCP> rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) [et al]write: [What are notification requirements for recording calls? FEDERAL - not required STATE - may be required] Last time I checked, in Massachusetts you must notify all parties unless you have a court order allowing recording without notification. Prosecutors tend to consider motivation as a major factor in whether they bother to prosecute. -- Rob Horn UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA (Note: harvard!infinet path is in maps but not working yet)
Re: phone taps
Author: die
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1987 09:41
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1987 09:41
29 lines
2354 bytes
2354 bytes
In article <674@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) writes:
>
> i thought that it was "legal" for NSA and others to monitor digital
> traffic in the domestic realm...the fun was to digitize conversations
> (like most cellular and fibre optical trunks) and then legally monitor
> the conversations, being now digital traffic...
The Electronic Communications Privacy act of 1986 revised the Federal
criminal code to eliminate the distinction that used to exist between voice
and video traffic (illegal to intercept) and digital and other forms of
comm{nications (once not illegal to intercept) by defining them all as
"electronic communications". The act includes a very broad definition of
what constitutes information as conveyed in an electronic communication and
effectively eliminates all the past loopholes based on nature of information
or format or mode of transmission.
More controversal, to at least some of us, are its elimination of
much of any distinction between media of transmission; in particular the ECPA
for the first time makes it a serious felony to merely listen to radio
communications on certain frequencies, using certain modulations, or from
certain transmitters. In fact, though the law will probably never be
enforced in such cases, it is quite possible to technically commit a federal
felony with penalties of 2 years in jail and $250,000 fine by simply casually
tuning around the electromagnetic spectrum with the kind of garden variety
shortwave radio, scanner or satellite dish system found in millions of homes.
David I. Emery Charles River Data Systems 617-626-1102
983 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701.
uucp: decvax!frog!die
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads