I just found this Web site; its really good.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Eric
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:37 PM
> To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: RE: Qworst DSL - Liars!
>
>
> "Communications law,"  huh?  you must be joking.  This is a matter of
> criminal law.  Communications lawyers, if there is such a thing, would
> specialize in the regualtion of the airwaves--i.e., FCC stuff.
>
> Look, everyone agrees it is not a violation of ARIZONA law to tape a
> conversation with only ONE person's consent.  The issue here is
> MONTANA law,
> and ITS requirements.  The only issue here is how to get around the MT
> requirement that ALL parties to a conversation consent.  Several
> suggestions
> have been made.
>
> Here is the statute for MT.  Read it for yourselves, and tell us
> all what is
> legal.  The only answer is to tell the person straight up that you are
> taping it.  You can't be coy.  The point of the statute is to have ALL
> parties understand they are being taped; not to have them guess or infer.
>
> Notice that 48-8-219 (c)i does not give an exception for any
> thing suggested
> today; no defense depends on who called whom, and no defense depends on
> whether one person is out of state.
>
>
> 45-8-213 Privacy in communications
>
>
> (1) Except as provided in 696104, a person commits the offense of
> violating
> privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely:
> (a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or
> offend, communicates with a person by telephone or electronic
> mail and uses
> obscene, lewd, or profane language, suggests a lewd or lascivious act, or
> threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of
> the person. The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the
> making of a
> threat or lewd or lascivious suggestions is prima facie evidence of an
> intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend.
> (b) uses a telephone or electronic mail to attempt to extort money or any
> other thing of value from a person or to disturb by repeated
> telephone calls
> or electronic mailings the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a
> person at
> the place where the telephone call or calls or electronic mailings are
> received;
> (c) records or causes to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden
> electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human
> conversation without
> the knowledge of all parties to the conversation. This subsection (1)(c)
> does not apply to:
> (i) elected or appointed public officials or employees when the
> transcription or recording is done in the performance of official duty,;
> (ii) to persons speaking at public meetings,; or to
> (iii) persons given warning of the transcription or recording.
> (d) by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance or in any other
> manner:
> (i) reads or attempts to read a message or learn the contents of a message
> while it is being sent over a telegraph line or by electronic mail;
> (ii) learns or attempts to learn the contents of a message while
> it is in a
> telegraph office or is being received at or sent from a telegraph
> office; or
> (iii) uses, attempts to use, or communicates to others any information
> obtained as provided in this subsection (1)(d);
> (e) discloses the contents of a telegraphic message, electronic
> mail, or any
> part of a telegraphic message or electronic mail addressed to
> another person
> without the permission of the person, unless directed to do so by
> the lawful
> order of a court; or
> (f) opens or reads or causes to be read any sealed letter or
> electronic mail
> not addressed to the person opening the letter or reading the electronic
> mail without being authorized to do so by either the writer of the letter,
> the sender of the electronic mail, or the person to whom it the letter or
> electronic mail is addressed or, without the like authority, publishes any
> of the contents of the letter or electronic mail knowing the letter or
> electronic mail to have been unlawfully opened.
> (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an employer or a representative of an
> employer who opens or reads, causes to be opened or read, or further
> publishes an electronic mail or other message that either originates at or
> is received by a computer or computer system that is owned, leased, or
> operated by or for the employer.
> (2)(3) Except as provided in 696104, a person commits the offense of
> violating privacy in communications if the person purposely intercepts a
> telephonic voice or data communication. This subsection does not apply to
> elected or appointed public officials or employees when the
> interception is
> done in the performance of official duty or to persons given
> warning of the
> interception.
> (3)(4) (a) A person convicted of the offense of violating privacy in
> communications shall be fined not to exceed $500 or imprisoned in
> the county
> jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both.
> (b) On a second conviction of subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), a
> person shall be
> imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 1 year or
> be fined an
> amount not to exceed $1,000, or both.
> (c) On a third or subsequent conviction of subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), a
> person shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term not to exceed 5
> years or be fined an amount not to exceed $10,000, or both."
> Section 9. Effective date. [This act] is effective July 1, 2001.
>
> Approved March 19, 2001>
>
> AND HERE IS 69-6-104
>
>
>
> 69-6-104 Search Term End . Control of telephone communications to
> and from a
> person holding hostages -- nonliability of telephone company officials
>
>
> A supervisory law enforcement official who has jurisdiction in a
> geographical area where hostages are being held and who has probable cause
> to believe that the holder of the hostages is committing a crime
> may order a
> previously designated telephone security employee or other
> telephone company
> official to arrange to cut, reroute, or divert telephone lines in order to
> prevent the holder of the hostages from communicating with any
> person other
> than a law enforcement officer or an individual authorized by a law
> enforcement officer. The serving telephone company within the geographical
> area of a law enforcement agency shall designate a telephone company
> security employee or other telephone company official and an alternate to
> provide all required assistance to law enforcement officials to carry out
> the purposes of this section. A telephone security employee or other
> telephone company official acting in good faith under an order given
> pursuant to this section does not commit the offense of violating
> privacy in
> communications and is not liable in any civil action brought as a
> result of
> such good faith actions
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>
> > From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of
> > Technomage
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 4:55 PM
> > To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > Subject: Re: Qworst DSL - Liars!
> >
> >
> > ok,
> > I've done a little digging (mostly for my own edification), but here
> > goes:
> >
> > in talking with an attorney that has a specialization in
> > communications law, I asked if it were legal in arizona
> > (assuming this is where the call originates), it is legal for
> > one of the parties involved in the call to record the call.
> > you are NOT required to let the other party on the line know
> > that you are recording (however, courtesy says you should).
> >
> > I tend to do this as a matter of course because I have no other
> > real way of taking fast notes. also, when you call qworst,
> > one of the thinsg they do tell you is "you call may be recorded
> > or monitored". Since they are headquartered in Denver, the state of
> > Colorado's laws would apply (and there, you are required to
> > notify the other party on the line that such a recording may
> > be taking place).
> >
> > one last thing, the laws (and courts) will often favor the customer
> > in most regards such that the customer has legal protects under his/her
> > state laws and they take precidence.
> >
> > this was hw it was explained to me. since this was a legal opinion,
> > such may change depending on who you talk to.
> >
> > Technomage Hawke
> >
> > Eric wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok I guess I 'm back in.
> > >
> > > I'm not an expert either.  But I don't need to be.  This stuff
> > is not estate
> > > planning or securities regulation.  Most of this is pretty basic.
> > >
> > > So if I call qworst and inquire about a DSL package, my call
> > may be sent to
> > > MT.  I start taping, and qworst starts lying.  I then rely on
> > qworst-lies
> > > (because I believed them initially) to my detriment.  I receive
> > a bill with
> > > a charge that was not explained to me by the qworst liar in MT.
> >  What now?
> > >
> > > Sue qworst (I really like saying that) in Arizona small claims
> > court.  That
> > > court would have personal jurisdiction over me and qworst
> > because of actual
> > > presence in the state, as well as subject matter jurisdiction
> > over the case
> > > because qworst's behavior is tortious, and is for an amount
> under $5,000
> > > let's say.
> > >
> > > Trial day comes and I ambush qworst with an ill-gotten
> > conversation.  qworst
> > > objects because it was illegally obtained and because it is
> > hearsay.  What
> > > principle does the judge use to exclude it?  I am not
> exactlly sure, but
> > > although it could survive the hearsay objection (because a
> > tape-recording is
> > > not exactly he-said/she-said), I am VERY doubtful that the
> tape would be
> > > admitted as evidence.  This is because it is illegally gained,
> > albeit only
> > > under MT law, not AZ.  I can't cite the specific rule of
> > evidence by which
> > > it would be excluded, but it just would.
> > >
> > > Even if it was not excluded as evidence in the case you
> > brought, qworst now
> > > has ammunition to bring their own suit against you.  And they
> > could try to
> > > do it either in MT or AZ.  MT, however, may not have personal
> > jurisdiction
> > > over me bc I have never been there, and did not choose to have
> > my call go
> > > there.  This one is close.  But even so, qworst could bring
> > suit against me
> > > in AZ for violation of MT law.  This can be done.  I have seen
> > cases where a
> > > whole bunch of different state laws were broken, but the case was only
> > > brought in one.  I have not seen a case like this one where
> > only one law was
> > > broken, but the case was brought in another.  But I don't
> have that much
> > > experience, so what do I know!  I bet it could be done though.
> > >
> > > So now you have qworst by the nads, and they have you.  What
> > has this gotten
> > > you?  What's more, the evidence you have may be excluded by
> the Arizona
> > > small-claims court because it was illegally obtained.  Then
> you are in a
> > > case where the only one whose nads are had is YOURS.
> > >
> > > And don't forget that we have only been talking about civil law
> > here.  Me v.
> > > Qworst is civil.  But violation of wiretap statutes is a crime,
> > at least in
> > > some states.   Remember the prosecutors' in Maryland tried to
> > get the nads
> > > of Linda Trip for taping her phone calls with 'ole Monica.  The
> > only reason
> > > this prosecution was unsuccessful was because K. Star had granted her
> > > immunity at the federal level for her actions; since fed. law
> > trumps state,
> > > no prosecution  nor no nads could be had.  But don't count on
> > Star saving
> > > your nads in this case.
> > >
> > > bye
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________
> > > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail
> > doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> > >
> > > PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> >
> > --
> > I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
> > numbered!
> > My life is my own - No. 6
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail
> > doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> >
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail
> doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>