• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Privacy ruling

Actually, if you read the article, the crime involved the person the daughter was talking to, not the daughter.


So it violated a state law in Washington. I actually think it's sound reasoning, though the sentence you quoted makes it sound like parents can't evesdrop on their children.

Bad news reporting, really.


It's already illegal for a person to listen in on a phone conversation without notifying the person on the other end, even if they have the permission of the person on the local end.

It's why "This call may be monitored for quality assurance" is a required message you hear when calling customer service of any company.
 
Silicon said:
Actually, if you read the article, the crime involved the person the daughter was talking to, not the daughter.


So it violated a state law in Washington. I actually think it's sound reasoning, though the sentence you quoted makes it sound like parents can't evesdrop on their children.

Bad news reporting, really.


It's already illegal for a person to listen in on a phone conversation without notifying the person on the other end, even if they have the permission of the person on the local end.

It's why "This call may be monitored for quality assurance" is a required message you hear when calling customer service of any company.
Click to expand...

Actually, those of us who *did* read the article saw the following words:

"...The court ruled that the daughter and her boyfriend had a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone. Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants. "

Thanks for all of your hard work being a poster child for illiteracy though.
;)
 
crimresearch said:


Thanks for all of your hard work being a poster child for illiteracy though.
;)
Click to expand...

Man you're snippy today!

Allow me to bold the other part of that same quote:

"...The court ruled that the daughter and her boyfriend had a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone. Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants. "
Click to expand...

So even if the daughter knew, it's the same ruling. Because the boy didn't know he was being wiretapped, without a court order it can't be used.

Telecommunications law is pretty clear on that. You also can't open someone else's mail even though they live at your house.

So the kid gets a new trial. Big deal. It's hearsay evidence anyway.
 
Pssst, also:

It's a state court and a state law. Not exactly precident unless you live in Washington. I wouldn't sweat it too much.
 
"You also can't open someone else's mail even though they live at your house."

Really? Is that a federal crime? Even if they're your kids?
 
Let's say we're talking about kids with a reasonable expectation of adult behavior and responsibility. Say 14 and up?
 
What's their expectation of privacy?

Is the recipient a minor?

Is the sender of the document a minor?

I guess you got me. I can't quote the law here.

But I do know that in many cases merely owning the house doesn't give you permission to snoop.

You may be able to snoop on your kids, but by using the telephone you are extending your snooping out of your house, and snooping on people you aren't the parents of.

Where were this "boyfriend"'s parents when all of this was happening?

In order to make the case that this means that parents in Washington can't oversee their kids activities anymore because of some wacko liberal activist court, you'd have to show that the court stepped in between mother and daughter.

They didn't. They stepped in between mother and daughter's boyfriend.


Which is good, otherwise you'll have cute daughters of police chiefs calling every boy in high-school flirting with them until they confess to every crime they can think of just to impress Peggy Sue. While daddy listens in with a tape-recorder.
 
I agree that I'd rather have a certain degree of expectation of privacy, although some people at work here tried to make the case that for certain crimes, we should be able to do whatever it takes to catch the person, which I don't necessarily agree with.

This, of course, led to a discussion of the comments on the Yahoo! News Message Boards (the pinnacle of online human interaction, I tell you) where there were lots of "My House, My Rules!" posturing and claims that children should have zero expectation of privacy.

From personal experience, being a child of divorce who experienced households at opposite ends of the spectrum of varying degrees, in the household where I was trusted, I returned that trust, breaking it very rarely, and living a happy life of responsibility and freedom. In the other household, life was absolute misery, because I was always presumed guilty, and I shirked every responsibility I could because I knew that it made no difference in the level of respect or trust I would have in the eyes of the parental figures. In fact, I went out of my way to do things I shouldn't in this household because I knew I'd get blamed for stuff anyway, so why not enjoy the crimes if punishment was guaranteed regardless of guilt or innocence?

My point was, spying on children is not a good way to raise people who will become trustworthy and responsible adults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom