Qworst DSL - Liars!

[Technomage]

you don't have to yell.

Eric wrote:
> 
> "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.
"comuniations law" covers a lot more ground than that dealing
specifically with the FCC. The telco system is governed my it
as well as all "wireless" systems. 

> 
> 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.
only if the call is assumed to have originated in MT. otherwise, the
state 
of origin has precidence.

> 
> 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.
then it is in contention. at this point, federal law takes over, period.

<SNIP> 
> 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
> 
<SNIP>
I am not sure how this would apply under "ordinary course of business".
 
Technomage Hawke

-- 
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6