View Single Post
Old August 30th, 2010, 09:11 AM   #40 (permalink)
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Originally Posted by nickkk View Post
You are wrong! Do not offer your personal oppinion in which someone might use it and get in to a lot of trouble.

Federal wide-tapping laws are as follows. You must verify that you are speaking with the inended party or an authorized representative for the party in which they state their name and relation. You must then state the call will be recorded.

No 3rd party needs to be involved. A recording of a telephone call or of a conversation (in a private dwelling) is wide-tapping.

You need not inform someone of a recording or video if in a public area or you have the permission of the property owner/official.

Any information obtained illegally will almost always be thrown out of court. You may also be held accountable for your actions.

Your car is also an extension of your home, however, you do not need to advise someone of a recording while you're in your car. You can record police pullovers as evidence if needed for your defense just as they do with audio and video in their cruisers.

I hope this helps.
I'm sorry, but your post is devoid of value because of the following reasons:

1. according to me, you do not understand wire-tapping. As I understand it, but I am not an authority in this question, wire-tapping happens when someone eavesdrops on a communication between two people by exploiting the fact that the wire cannot be protected and therefore breaching the party's privacy without consent - historically done by climbing a pole or digging up a wire and tapping it. When you're at home and your partner of conversation is at their home, you cannot know of this act and therefore cannot protect your privacy. If you had a conversation at home with another person in the same room, and a third party walked in on you, you could tell them to leave the room because it is a private conversation. This is impossible with wiretapping.

2. you do not bring up any references. you try to be a mega-authority in terms of USA Federal Law yet bring up no laws to take account of. This has been done better earlier in this thread with people bringing up court orders and jury testimonies, in favor of the fact that YES INDEED, IT IS ALLOWED. You lack any legal support in your post. You didn't even use any basic logic to explain this, you just impose what is opinion, as unbeatable fact.

3. Even if it were completely outlawed according to the USA Federal laws, this is and not The Android operating system and the telephones can be used in other countries - you know other countries exist, right? So don't spoil the game for people who you didn't even think about. It is perfectly admissible to record your own conversations in Europe.

4. If someone sends me an email, and I save it on my HDD, is that eavesdropping? No, it's not. And neither is saving on my HDD audio streams that someone sends me. Sorry to rain on your parade, but there's little difference in this regard whether the conversation is aural, textual, or using taps on the other person's back in morse code.

5. Even if it were absolutely needed to warn the other person that you're recording, then it is still not illegal to record the conversation - you warn the other person, wait for their agreement, click record, and off you go. So, still, a lot of legitimate use, for people like me (business conversations for future reference), for reporters (interviews, telephone based reports from remote units), for lawyers (many lawyers will record face to face conversations with their clients for legal purposes and the other person knows about it), for anyone who's on call and gets paid by the minute (in order to prove the phone call existed and that work was being discussed during the phone call), and so on. The possibilities are really big, and the ones I have mentioned above do exclude routing the phone call through an external phone number for some phonecall recording service.

Therefore, taking all above posts to consideration, the current consensus is:




cheater is offline  
Reply With Quote