Eavesdropping on your child is illegal!
pob...@ix.netcom.com
SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
conversation.
Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.
"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."
The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
to the mother's testimony.
"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of
individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability
to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote.
That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.
"I don't think the state should be in the position of
encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union.
Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
whereabouts are unknown.
Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
she'll stop that now.
"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
=====================================================
ajpdla
news:gufir0lg8oh3liimb...@4ax.com...
> Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, pob...@ix.netcom.com on Fri, 10
> Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:
>
>>Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
>>
>>SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
>>state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
>>Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
>>conversation.
>
>
> It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!
Nice try, but not true.
Bill Crocker
son was talking to a friend, and mom was monitoring, or recording, then it
would not be legal.
Problem now is, her son may have won the battle, but mom will win the war.
Bill Crocker
<pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:41B9398A...@plainview.net...
Gordon Burditt
>Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a
>recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
>is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
>made.
Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.
In some states, the recording is OK if one of the parties is doing
the recording (and therefore knows about it). In others, it's not.
ALL parties have to know.
In no state (and I believe this is also a federal law) is it legal
for the husband to monitor the conversation between his wife and
her lover (or, in the case referred to, for a mother to monitor the
conversation between her child and his friends).
Gordon L. Burditt
Gordon Burditt
>>
>>>Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a
>>>recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
>>>is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
>>>made.
>>
>>Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.
>
>cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in
>California.
Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be")
in different states. Chances are if Mom is listening on her child
talking to his friends, they (all three) are in the same state.
>Who's law would apply ?
>
>>In some states, the recording is OK if one of the parties is doing
>>the recording (and therefore knows about it). In others, it's not.
>>ALL parties have to know.
>
>I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. It sounds like you state one
>thing and then contradict yourself.
Different states have different rules. Some require ONE party to know,
others require that ALL parties know. Read the front section of your
phone book; chances are your state's rules are mentioned there.
>But, again, recording/wire-tap laws are determined at the federal level. Any
>state laws are superseded by federal law anyway.
This isn't the case if the federal law defers to the state. It's
my understanding that federal law requires that AT LEAST one party
knows about the recording, and that some states have stricter rules.
>Just like California has a state law allowing medical pot use. The federal
>government doesn't recognize this law and will prosecute anyone using
>"medical" pot. It's a hot topic. Federal always has and always will take
>precedence over state law.
Only if the laws conflict. For example, the Federal Do Not Call List
didn't abolish all the Do Not Call Lists in states that had them.
A law can explicitly say that the states are free to impose higher
penalties. Federal regulations capping speed limits on highways (for
energy-conservation purposes) don't prevent states from putting
a lower speed limit on a section of highway (for safety, noise,
revenue enhancement, or other reasons).
Gordon L. Burditt
Penny
and that crime cost somebody $$$'s, does the kid pay? Or does the
parent pay? Is the state willing to pay the legal fees? If a parent
can't eaves drop on a minor child, when they believe their child is
doing something illegal or unnacceptable, in their home that they are
paying for and the phone that they are paying for, then the state
shouldn't hold the parent financially accountable. THAT'S my ever so
humble GOOD parent opinion. Carmen, right or wrong...I would have done
the same thing...
Dave C.
Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough
to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents
should mind their own business. This ruling is right and just. It is also
surprising, as courts rarely rule on the side of common sense. -Dave
Dave C.
> OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
>
Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of
employment. For the same thing to happen in a mother/child relationship,
the legal documents would have to be signed by an embryo. -Dave
Dave C.
>
> Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
> electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
> place using her property
No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust
your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave
Dave C.
"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:meajr09dfcu82t7oo...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:10 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote:
>
>>As I wrote elsewhere . . .
>>
>> Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough
>>to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents
>>should mind their own business.
>
Two teenagers. I take it you endorse illegally spying on my kids if they
happen to call your kids? If you don't trust your kids to use the phone
responsibly, then keep them off the phone. You don't have to let them use
the phone at all. But if you do, the law dictates that you not spy on them.
So you need to decide whether you trust them or not BEFORE they use the
phone. -Dave
larryb...@yahoo.com
pob...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
>
> SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
> state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
> Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
> conversation.
>
> Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.
>
> "It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
> said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
> that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
> her. I did it all the time."
This is ridiculous. Wonder how this ever got to court in the first
place?
If she isn't going to wiretap anymore, the answer is easy, no phones
for the kids.
Dave C.
>>happen to call your kids?
>
> in
> to the mud? You bet your ass I will.
>
> It's not rocket science.
Two problems with that, rocket scientist. First, In the referenced case in
the OP, the mother didn't suspect anything illegal UNTIL SHE BROKE THE LAW
HERSELF. Also, how are you going to protect your kids if you end up in
prison for illegal wire-tapping for spying on someone else's kids?
If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be using
the phone. It's not rocket science. -Dave
Barbara
consent to monitor or record calls -- I'm quite interested, as it is
relevant to my profession. Otherwise, please see, eg,
http://expertpages.com/news/taping_conversations.htm
The *legalities* in the case of listening in to your child's
conversations, BTW, really refer to the use of the information gathered
in court. (In this case, it appears that mom was going to testify
against the teenager with whom her child was speaking; I'd guess that
the teenager confessed to a crime. Just to keep this in perspective.)
I strongly doubt that any court is otherwise going to opine on the
appropriateness of a parent listening in on his or her kids'
conversations. So, the real questions regarding eavesdropping become
those relating to familial relations and trust.
Barbara
Dave C.
"Scott en Aztlán" <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:9ufjr0ptsejorf0af...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote:
>
>>> Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
>>> OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
>>>
>>
>>Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of
>>employment.
>
>
>
Actually, a minor child does have some rights. It is illegal to eavesdrop
on phone conversations, and there is no exception for age of the people
talking on the phone. Minor children do NOT have the right to talk on the
phone, however. So as I've stated several times, if you don't want to OBEY
THE LAW and let your child's phone conversations be private, then forbid
your children from using the phone. -Dave
Dave C.
>
> Why does a child have an expectation or privacy but an employee does
> not? And forget that crap about how you "signed your rights away" when
> you joined the company; I've worked plenty of jobs in my life and
> never signed such a document, yet I know that my phone calls and email
> can be monitored by my remployer at any time. It's a basic right the
> employer has - I don't need to sign anything for it to be in effect.
>
> If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can buy her own phone
> service. Pre-paid cell phones are widely available - no credit check
> required.
>
Ummm . . . eavesdropping on a telephone conversation is illegal. There is
no exception for employers. If you didn't sign your rights away, then you
have the expectation of privacy when using the phone . . . ANY phone. BTW,
where do YOU work where the employer is stupid enough to not insist that you
sign your rights away?
If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can expect her parents to
OBEY THE LAW, if her parents allow her to use the phone at all. -Dave
Dave C.
> respectful to their father, like little military cadets. They never
> talk back, they never lie, they never say they're going one place and
> really go another... And they never need parental monitoring to keep
> them from making poor decisions.
>
> Must be nice.
>
Well, they do have a good mother, as I chose her very carefully. On a side
note, there was a civil lawsuit in the news recently where a jury awarded
tons of money to a mail-order bride who married a wife-beater. The
judgement was against the dating service that introduced the couple. Most
people seem to think this is OK, as the dating service should have known
that the never-previously-married man was a wife beater. Me, I think if you
are stupid enough to marry someone whom you DON'T KNOW very well, then
that's your own damned fault if it turns out to have been the wrong
decision. Choosing someone to marry (or even whether to marry at all) is
the single biggest decision you will ever make in your life. Choose
sely. -Dave
JerryL
> But back to the original deal. If I think something is going on with my
> kids
> that isn't right and listening in on a phone call will let me know for
> sure -
> I'm going to do it. Period.
>
>>If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be
>>using
>>the phone.
>
> trust has nothing to do with anything.
>
When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on
the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not
done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into
at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I
didn't care. As long as I was responsible for him, I did what I thought was
right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys of his own and he admits that he
would have gotten into trouble had I not monitored his actions. If ever the
State thinks they can do a better job than I can as a parent, they are
welcome to take care of my kids, stay up with them all night when they are
sick, walk them to school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and
worry about them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine,
I'll do it my way.
shanaj...@yahoo.com
phones from my house because I can't trust my kids, then when there is
an emergency and something happens to my minor child, I will be
considered an irresponsible parent because they can't call 911 and I'll
be sued by my kid and the child welfare department. Where is the
common sense here. Parents are responsible for their minor childs
actions.....PERIOD. Parents, do what you must to keep your kids safe!
Renee
> This is ridiculous. Wonder how this ever got to court in the first
> place?
This went to court because it was a trial for the boyfriend who was
accused of snatching purses. The mother, herself, was never on trial. I
don't even think it says that parents can get into trouble for
monitoring their kids phonecalls. Just that any information heard can't
be entered as evidence if their kid or someone they are talking to
admits over the phone to doing a crime.
Renee
dragonlady
wrote:
When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
at my discretion.
I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have
some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.
(She's more or less fine now, and I no longer feel the need to invade
her privacy.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
Ken Finney
"ajpdla" <ajp...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:10rig7r...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Never anonymous Bud" <new...@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
> news:gufir0lg8oh3liimb...@4ax.com...
> > Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, pob...@ix.netcom.com on Fri,
10
> > Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:
> >
> >>Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
> >>
> >>SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
> >>state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
> >>Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
> >>conversation.
> >
> >
> > It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!
>
> Nice try, but not true.
>
>
Something that no one has mentioned is that this was the Washington State
Supreme Court. Washington State's Constitution has a higher right of
privacy
than the US Constitution, so several things that are legal in other States
aren't
legal in Washington State.
dragonlady
Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:25:33 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
> >>> OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of
> >>employment.
> >
> >And a minor child has no rights to begin with.
>
> Although I agree this is how it should be - the courts have decided otherwise
> in this particular case.
This conversation has gotten weird.
I read the article again, and it does NOT say that a parent
eavesdropping on their child is illegal. The mother in question has not
been charged with any crime.
What the court ruled was that information gathered this way was not
admissable in a court of law in a case involving a third party.
The admissability of evidence often has nothing to do with whether the
activity itself was illegal. In the most blatent example I can think
of, it is perfectly legal for a person's spouse to tell them they've
committed a crime; however, information gathered that way can NOT be
used as evidence in a criminal trial.
Nor was there any indication that the mother recorded the call, or had a
wire tap -- she listened in on it. Her testemony about what she HEARD
was declared inadmissable.
So, if it seems necessary, I say continue to listen in on conversations
being held on your phone in your house.
Jonathan Kamens
>I read the article again, and it does NOT say that a parent
>eavesdropping on their child is illegal. The mother in question has not
>been charged with any crime.
I thought this as well, but I went to news.google.com and
searched for "Dixon Christensen" to get more info about the
case, and apparently in fact the court did rule that it was
against the law for the mother to eavesdrop on her child's
conversations.
Bob Ward
<new...@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, pob...@ix.netcom.com on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:
>
>>Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
>>
>>SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
>>state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
>>Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
>>conversation.
>
>That's bullshit.
>
>It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!
Sorry, but the law disagrees. It's not a queston of who owns the
phone, it's a question of who has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
By YOUR logic, the owner of a pay phone could record all your calls
and broadcast them on the store's loudspeaker.
Bob Ward
<sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:23:56 -0800, "ajpdla" <ajp...@pacifier.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> That's bullshit.
>>>
>>> It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!
>>
>>Nice try, but not true.
>
>Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
>OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
Because the employers are required to notify both the employee and the
customer that the calls are being monitored.
Bob Ward
<sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:41:25 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote:
>
>>> That *is* ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
>>> electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
>>> place using her property
>>
>>No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
>>phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
>>using it.
>
>Why does a child have an expectation or privacy but an employee does
>not? And forget that crap about how you "signed your rights away" when
>you joined the company; I've worked plenty of jobs in my life and
>never signed such a document, yet I know that my phone calls and email
>can be monitored by my remployer at any time. It's a basic right the
>employer has - I don't need to sign anything for it to be in effect.
>
The next time you call your phone company about your phone bill,
LISTEN to what the voices are telling you for a change... "This call
may be monitored to insure better customer service"... you think they
are making that statement out of the kindness of their heart?
>>If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
>>shouldn't be on the phone at all.
>
>If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can buy her own phone
>service. Pre-paid cell phones are widely available - no credit check
>required.
>
>>Put another way . . . if you don't trust
>>your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
>>child shouldn't be using the phone, period.
>
>I guess you feel the same way about the GPS tracking device I have
>installed in the car that my teenaged son drives? ;)
Is there a federal law against GPS tracking?
Bob Ward
<wcroc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. In this case, if the
>son was talking to a friend, and mom was monitoring, or recording, then it
>would not be legal.
>
>Problem now is, her son may have won the battle, but mom will win the war.
>
>Bill Crocker
That varies by state, as well...
Dave C.
"Mark" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0jgjr0tuu7v6n77ur...@4ax.com...
>>First, In the referenced case in
>>the OP, the mother didn't suspect anything illegal UNTIL SHE BROKE THE LAW
>>HERSELF.
>
> And you'll notice that the courts took no action against her. They just
> threw
> out her testimony. Can you figure out why that is?
>
Because the courts (judges, really) don't bring criminal charges against
anyone unless said criminal activity happens in the court. (such as
"contempt of court" and similar). If the DA were to bring wiretapping
charges against the mom in question, I doubt the "court" would dismiss the
charges. The court ruled on whether the testimony of the mother was
admissible. The judge made the right ruling. Illegally obtained evidence
is not admissible. -Dave
Byron Canfield
> On 10 Dec 2004 13:18:54 GMT, gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
wrote:
>
> No, federal supersedes local. Always has and always will.
That is true only in those issues where the federal government has been
granted the power to make laws by the "several states" and the citizens
thereof. In issues for which the power has NOT be granted to the federal
government, the state law supercedes, though the federal government would
like you to believe otherwise.
--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Tom
> When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether
> on the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends.
> Had I not done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would
> have gotten into at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained
> about his privacy but I didn't care. As long as I was responsible for
> him, I did what I thought was right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys
> of his own and he admits that he would have gotten into trouble had I
> not monitored his actions. If ever the State thinks they can do a
> better job than I can as a parent, they are welcome to take care of my
> kids, stay up with them all night when they are sick, walk them to
> school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and worry about
> them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine, I'll
> do it my way.
AMEN!!!
--
Tom
"That man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest."
-Henry Thoreau
dragonlady
"Curtis CCR" <curt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
> with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
> a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
> able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
> have no legal worries.
My own position is that my kids started out with a high expectation of
privacy from me and their dad (and each other). When that changed, I
felt morally obligated (not legally) to tell them, and to tell them why.
>
> The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
> was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter.
>
> Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your
> discretion. But you can't control the rights of people she talks to on
> the phone. So you have use even more discretion when eavesdropping on
> both sides of a phone call.
>
I understand that -- but, since I was only "using" the information with
my daughter, and would not have used the information in any other way, I
decided to do it anyway. (The only exception was towards a young man
who had been ordered to have no contact with her -- but I never listened
long enough to hear what he was saying, only to tell him to get off the
phone immediately. He's in prison now, so I don't worry about him any
more....)
Curtis CCR
You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
have no legal worries.
The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
Curtis CCR
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:55:07 GMT, dragonlady
<meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <5rgjr0peg8cjhuh3g...@4ax.com>,
> > Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:25:33 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> >> <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees
but not
> >> >>> OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a
condition of
> >> >>employment.
> >> >
> >> >And a minor child has no rights to begin with.
> >>
> >> Although I agree this is how it should be - the courts have
decided otherwise
> >> in this particular case.
> >This conversation has gotten weird.
> >
> >I read the article again, and it does NOT say that a parent
> >eavesdropping on their child is illegal. The mother in question has
not
> >been charged with any crime.
> >
> >What the court ruled was that information gathered this way was not
> >admissable in a court of law in a case involving a third party.
> No, it said her testimony could not be admissible because the
information she
> received was obtained by violating the other person's civil rights.
What other person's civil rights? Her daughter's? The article leads
me to believe no such thing. It did not say that her minor daughter
had any expectation of privacy in the parents' home. This dealt
strictly with testimony in a criminal matter, and how the information
from that testimony was obtained. I doubt it cleared the way for the
daughter to sue her mother. They said the police can't use it.
I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from
the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other kid
admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else say,
and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay -
inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained.
Byron Canfield
news:1102710571.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark wrote:
> I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from
> the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other kid
> admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else say,
> and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay -
> inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained.
Well, I think you hit on it. The AP article (and the original poster of the
thread) made a distinct point of misquoting the court case in order to
create a sensational headline, solely for the purpose of riling everybody.
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
Bob Ward
wrote:
Presumeably the daughter was talking to someone else on the phone.
She had no parental rights to intrude on the expectation of that
person's right to privacy.
Curtis CCR
> Why does a child have an expectation or privacy but an employee does
> not? And forget that crap about how you "signed your rights away"
when
> you joined the company; I've worked plenty of jobs in my life and
> never signed such a document, yet I know that my phone calls and
email
> can be monitored by my remployer at any time. It's a basic right the
> employer has - I don't need to sign anything for it to be in effect.
That's not true everywhere. I am operations manager for a major
communications provider and I serve one major corporate customer. That
customer recently asked me to connect an employee's phone line to the
call monitoring system normally used for "quality assurance" recording
in the call centers. The confidential request they made noted their
intention to monitor the employee's phone calls without his knowledge.
I had to advise them that what they were doing was illegal - I
contacted *their* legal and security group who concurred with my
advice. In California, any phone call going over the public network
cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH parties.
The company can record/monitor internal calls. They are on a private
network. So anyone that believes they have a right to privacy on ANY
phone, should think again. E-mails are different matter - that is
written corespondance that can be considered company record when it's
on their system.
The restrictions extend to the call center operations here too.
Customers hear "your call may be monitored or recorded..." The
montoring system records all calls on the customer service reps phone,
as well as what they are doing on their computer during the call. In
addition to the line for call queues, there is also a line for the CSR
to use for direct incoming calls or to make outgoing calls. The
monitoring system records all calls on the CSR's phone regardless of
what line is used.
When recordings are reviewed by management, they are always reviewed by
two people. The privacy policy requires that as soon as they identify
anything they hear as personal or otherwise not related to customer
service, they stop listening and move on. The direct line on the CSR
phone does not have a monitoring notice so the privacy has to be
extended to third party.
> >If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
> >shouldn't be on the phone at all.
>
> If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can buy her own phone
> service. Pre-paid cell phones are widely available - no credit check
> required.
>
> >Put another way . . . if you don't trust
> >your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her,
then your
> >child shouldn't be using the phone, period.
>
> I guess you feel the same way about the GPS tracking device I have
> installed in the car that my teenaged son drives? ;)
> --
> Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
dragonlady
Scott en Aztl?n <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:15:55 -0500, Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >Not to mention another reason for "invading" your kid's "privacy". Some of
> >the foolish actions they may take could very well cost the parent both
> >legally
> >and financially.
>
> BINGO.
>
> And as long as I am on the hook legaly and financially for my child's
> behavior, I'm going to control that behavior in any way I see fit.
>
> The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is
> the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone.
>
> Sorry if that offends you bleeding heart liberals in the audience. ;)
My kids are now all 18 and older, and I have not stopped caring.
I'm glad to no longer be "on the hook", but I still care passionately.
If I thought invading their privacy at this point would serve any useful
purpose, I'd do it.
Though I will point out, in the "for what it's worth" category, that
many times the parents are NOT fined or held responsible. When my
daughter got busted in 10th grade with brandy at school (and drunk), and
when she got busted for having cigarettes in her possession, she had to
go to court, and fines were levied. I didn't pay them. Neither did she
-- until she found out she couldn't get her driver's license until she
DID pay them. The silly girl thought I'd pay the fines, or lend her the
money to pay them. (Not sure what universe she thought we were in . .
.) She finally got a job, and paid the fines -- and got her license
last week, just a few weeks before her 19th birthday.
In other cases, the parents CAN still be held responsible no matter how
old the "kid" is -- for example, if my car or house are found to have
illegal drugs in them, I could still be fined or have my property
confiscated, even if I didn't know they were there. There've been cases
where people have been thrown out of their rental units because one of
their kids (or grandkids) had illegal drugs on the premises.
I'm one of those "bleeding heart liberals" (though I much prefer to
think of myself as progressive). The only thing I find offensive about
your statement is that you stopped caring. I don't think I'll EVER stop
caring!
Dads Mail
on what she herd when her daughter was talking to the boyfriend. This case
reflects what evedence can be brought to court. As a parent you still have a
right to listen and be concerned on what your children do. this story was
not reported correctly and was a teaser, but it did make headlines right?
"Scott en Aztlán" <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:706kr0lq2lud1dk04...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:15:55 -0500, Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>Not to mention another reason for "invading" your kid's "privacy". Some
>>of
>>the foolish actions they may take could very well cost the parent both
>>legally
>>and financially.
>
> BINGO.
>
> And as long as I am on the hook legaly and financially for my child's
> behavior, I'm going to control that behavior in any way I see fit.
>
> The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is
> the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone.
>
> Sorry if that offends you bleeding heart liberals in the audience. ;)
>
Dan Lanciani
[...]
| In California, any phone call going over the public network
| cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH parties.
[...]
| The restrictions extend to the call center operations here too.
| Customers hear "your call may be monitored or recorded..." The
| montoring system records all calls on the customer service reps phone,
| as well as what they are doing on their computer during the call. In
| addition to the line for call queues, there is also a line for the CSR
| to use for direct incoming calls or to make outgoing calls. The
| monitoring system records all calls on the CSR's phone regardless of
| what line is used.
|
| When recordings are reviewed by management, they are always reviewed by
| two people. The privacy policy requires that as soon as they identify
| anything they hear as personal or otherwise not related to customer
| service, they stop listening and move on. The direct line on the CSR
| phone does not have a monitoring notice so the privacy has to be
| extended to third party.
Are you saying that they do record the direct line even though there is
no notice to the person on the other end? If that is the case, hasn't the
law already been violated even if the people reviewing the tapes try to
avoid listening to "personal" content?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
dragonlady
Scott en Aztl?n <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:00:51 GMT, dragonlady
> <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> The day they are the ones who will go to jail when they screw up is
> >> the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone.
> >
> >My kids are now all 18 and older, and I have not stopped caring.
> >
> >I'm glad to no longer be "on the hook", but I still care passionately.
> >If I thought invading their privacy at this point would serve any useful
> >purpose, I'd do it.
>
> You gotta draw the line at some point. Where will that be for you?
Caring? Never. My mom still cares about what *I'm* doing, and I'm 52.
>
> >In other cases, the parents CAN still be held responsible no matter how
> >old the "kid" is -- for example, if my car or house are found to have
> >illegal drugs in them, I could still be fined or have my property
> >confiscated, even if I didn't know they were there.
>
> That's only a problem if you plan to have your adult children still
> living in your home as opposed to away at college or on their own. If
> they are at college but they stay with you during semester breaks and
> over the summer, then I would consider them not yet fully adult and
> continue to monitor them as necessary.
Two of my adult children DO still live with me, because I can't afford
to send them to 4 year colleges. They live at home, and attend a local
community college -- and I support them, as do many parents of college
age kids.
>
> >I'm one of those "bleeding heart liberals" (though I much prefer to
> >think of myself as progressive). The only thing I find offensive about
> >your statement is that you stopped caring. I don't think I'll EVER stop
> >caring!
>
> I never said I'd stop caring about the kids, I said I'd stop caring
> what they were talking about on the phone - unless they gave me
> probable cause to be suspicious, of course. ;)
You SAID you stopped caring about what they were doing once their
behavior would no longer put you on the hook legally. Now you're saying
that, if they gave you cause to be suspicious, you'd still care enough
to eavesdrop. Can't have it both ways -- and I'm saying that, if I
thought listening in on their phone calls now would be helpful in any
way, I'd still do it.
MashedTaters
> Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
> SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
> state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
> Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
> conversation.
Wow. That's rather across the board.
One special case comes to mind. What if the teenager is emotionally
handicapped?
I know of a fetal alcohol syndrom girl. Her adopted mother occassionally
listened to her phone conversations.
The girl had no mainstream friends. She did have a number of friends
she met at special functions (Special Olympics, a special bowling
league). These friends were spread throughout the city or region
and weren't "in the flesh" except during the events. So the phone was
critical to this girl's social life. That's how she stayed in touch
with friends.
By picking up the phone one day, the mom found out a 30'ish man was
calling her daughter regularly. The man was asking her daughter about
condoms, where they were going to meet, etc.
So I guess that conversation couldn't be used to convict a guy of
statutory rape or child molestation.
That's ... not believable. There must be some clause that's
not being mentioned.
pob...@ix.netcom.com
>
> "Curtis CCR" <curt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1102710571.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Mark wrote:
> > I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from
> > the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other kid
> > admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else say,
> > and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay -
> > inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained.
>
> Well, I think you hit on it. The AP article (and the original poster of the
> thread) made a distinct point of misquoting the court case in order to
> create a sensational headline, solely for the purpose of riling everybody.
Oh?
Well, I posted this and here are the AP headers and 1st paragraph:
Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
conversation.
(KM)
dragonlady
Scott en Aztl?n <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:10:28 GMT, dragonlady
> <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> You gotta draw the line at some point. Where will that be for you?
> >
> >Caring? Never. My mom still cares about what *I'm* doing, and I'm 52.
>
> At some point a parent has to let go and stop trying to micromanage
> their childrens' lives. I guess with some parents that occurs after
> the parent's death. ;)
Why, in your mind, does "caring" equal "micromanging" -- or, for that
matter, ANY managing?
I can detach with love -- that means I keep caring, but acknowledge that
they are in charge of their own lives. I CAN control MY decisions, and
that might mean, for example, no longer paying for college if they don't
take it seriously enough to finish classes. But that isn't an attempt
to control what THEY do -- just making clear boundaries: as long as
they are in school, and taking school seriously, I will cover books,
tuition and fees, keep them in transportation, and provide free room and
board. If they STOP going to school, they can provide their own
transportation and, if they want to live here, pay room and board.
Recently, I've had to make clear that if they choose to NOT live at
home, I will NOT give them money for ongoing living expenses. I can
afford to cover that if they are living here, but we don't have extra
money to cover their rent, utilities, etc. living somewhere else.
>
> >You SAID you stopped caring about what they were doing once their
> >behavior would no longer put you on the hook legally. Now you're saying
> >that, if they gave you cause to be suspicious, you'd still care enough
> >to eavesdrop.
>
> IF I have reason to suspect that they are, for example, using illegal
> drugs in my home or one of my vehicles, then I will certainly do
> whatever is necessary to protect myself. In the absence of any reason
> to suspect such things, however, I won't waste my time eavesdropping
> on their boring conversations.
>
> >I'm saying that, if I
> >thought listening in on their phone calls now would be helpful in any
> >way, I'd still do it.
>
> So if you thought your daughter was dating a "bad boy" type who was no
> good for her, you'd eavesdrop on their phone conversations and try to
> intervene?
>
> Not me. Some things people just have to learn for themselves. ;)
Where on earth did I say THAT?
When I say "if I thought it would help", I'm talking about finding out
they are into things like illegal drugs (using and/or selling),
stealing, unsafe sex -- basically, things that are illegal or could kill
them -- and I believed that violating their privacy would provide me
with the kind of information I needed to intervene.
I DID intervene when a 21 yo "bad boy" started hanging around my younger
daughter when she was 14, but I smelled a predator (accurately, as it
turned out) and he is now in prison on a variety of charges related to
his activities with minors. I was desperately trying to keep her safe
from this jerk.
However, other than that, I have NEVER tried to control who my kids are
friends with, even when I think their friends are bad for them. And
they HAVE made some astoundingly bad choices in friends! The most I've
done is tried to make sure they spend lots of time in places healthy for
them, so they'd have an opportunity to make good friends, too -- places
like the theater program they all enjoyed, and church, which they ALSO
enjoyed.
Heck, for a while, one of my kids dated a young man who lived under a
bridge. He had lots of problems. I invited him for dinner as often as
he wanted to eat with us, and, when he was VERY ill, allowed him to
sleep in our house (on the sofa!) for a couple of weeks. (I had, at one
point, allowed him to stay for a few weeks while he was waiting to get
into transitional housing; however, when a room became available, he
decided he didn't want the amount of structure required to live there,
so I threw him out.) I did not "approve" of their relationship, but I
also knew that if she wanted to see him, she would -- I figured if I
kept them close, it would be better all around. Unfortunately, his
going away present to her was a case of Hepatitis B.
Byron Canfield
news:41BA3A0C...@ix.netcom.com...
--which confirms my statement, as it is made clear, later in the article
that the AP summation is extrapolating, rather than quoting the court
decision; that the court merely ruled that evidence collected in that manner
was inadmissible in court..
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:10 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> >As I wrote elsewhere . . .
> >
> > Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough
> >to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents
> >should mind their own business.
>
> Don't have kids, eh?
------------------
Not unless you're willing to be limited by requirements that you
treat them honorably and humanely, no.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on
> the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not
> done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into
> at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I
> didn't care.
So what you did was to simply ensure that you would never REALLY know
what was happening in his life, and you still don't. He undoubtedly
used the knowledge of your spying as a means to disinform you.
Charming what people think are the results of their actions.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:57:15 -0500, "JerryL" <jle...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >>snip<
> >> But back to the original deal. If I think something is going on with my
> >> kids
> >> that isn't right and listening in on a phone call will let me know for
> >> sure -
> >> I'm going to do it. Period.
> >>
> >>>If you don't trust your kids to use the phone, then they shouldn't be
> >>>using
> >>>the phone.
> >>
> >> If you were a parent who gave a shit, you'd do things differently. Phone
> >> trust has nothing to do with anything.
> >>
> >
> >When my son was a teenager I listened in on his conversations, whether on
> >the phone or behind his closed door when he was with his friends. Had I not
> >done this, I don't know what kind of troubles my son would have gotten into
> >at that time. Sure he bitched, moaned and complained about his privacy but I
> >right. Now he's in his 40's with 3 boys of his own and he admits that he
> >would have gotten into trouble had I not monitored his actions. If ever the
> >State thinks they can do a better job than I can as a parent, they are
> >welcome to take care of my kids, stay up with them all night when they are
> >sick, walk them to school, take them on vacations and pay for their care and
> >worry about them as much as I do but as long as all those duties are mine,
> >I'll do it my way.
>
----------------
That's because you're an idiot and don't grasp the secondary effect
she had, to never actually be able to know what was really going on,
to teach her son how to lie better and keep secrets, and how to
disinform when he believed she was listening in. But much worse, to
make her son realize that she was on her OWN side, and not on his,
and that he couldn't really count on her for anything.
Our kids could count on us not dishonoring them or trying to control
them by dishonor, and thus they told us everything.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:15:55 -0500, Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >Not to mention another reason for "invading" your kid's "privacy". Some of
> >the foolish actions they may take could very well cost the parent both legally
> >and financially.
>
> BINGO.
>
> And as long as I am on the hook legaly and financially for my child's
> behavior, I'm going to control that behavior in any way I see fit.
>
> the day I stop caring what they say to their friends on the phone.
>
The problem with your kind of ignorance is that the EFFECT that you
THINK that it has, it doesn't.
As soon as you try to be controlling your child will remove their
trust from you and you will know MUCH less than you THINK you know
from then on, you will NEVER be able to trust them, because they
will never trust you or even LIKE you, everything they do after
that is merely PLAY-ACTING!! If you don't understand that this
is true, then either your kids are actually even more congenitally
simple-minded than YOU are, or you've made yourself blind, deaf,
and dumb! There is NO effective way to control anyone with their
own mind and control of their own body, you simply can't control
them every second and have a life of your own! They know this.
In addition to that you destroy any actual use they might have had
for you by making yourself obnoxious, and you have taught them that
they can't count on anyone like you.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Funny how consistently those who say "Amen" to ignorance reprove
their own.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> I have to laugh, I think Dave C. is a lawyer. The minute I remove the
> phones from my house because I can't trust my kids, then when there is
> an emergency and something happens to my minor child, I will be
> considered an irresponsible parent because they can't call 911 and I'll
> be sued by my kid and the child welfare department. Where is the
> common sense here. Parents are responsible for their minor childs
> actions.....PERIOD. Parents, do what you must to keep your kids safe!
----------------------------
You simply don't grasp this deeply enough.
Here's what parental responsibility ACTUALLY means! Actually: The
parent deserves everything their child decides to inflict upon them!!
And why?
Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how
the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same
treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't
trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you
were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their
hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a
mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then
you DESERVE ALL the results!!
Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE,
is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they
want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Yeah. The "you're merely ignorant" clause.
Without a warrant, contents of phone calls are protected even from
heresay about them as being "fruit of the poisoned tree" because
they have the "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, pob...@ix.netcom.com on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:
>
> >Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
> >
> >SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
> >state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
> >Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
> >conversation.
>
>
> It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!
-------------------
Not in a majority of US states.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:23:56 -0800, "ajpdla" <ajp...@pacifier.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> That's bullshit.
> >>
> >> It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!
> >
>
> Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
> OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
There is less expectation of privacy in the workplace.
And the employer pays for the setting.
You would STILL need a warrant to make a conversation court-admissible.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> >> Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
> >> OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
> >>
> >
> >employment.
>
> And a minor child has no rights to begin with.
Entirely wrong.
> I don't see the difference.
------------------
Nor can someone as ignorant as you be expected to.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> "Scott en Aztlán" <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:38:26 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
> >>> OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of
> >>employment.
> >
> > And a minor child has no rights to begin with.
> >
> >
>
> on phone conversations, and there is no exception for age of the people
> talking on the phone. Minor children do NOT have the right to talk on the
> phone, however. So as I've stated several times, if you don't want to OBEY
> THE LAW and let your child's phone conversations be private, then forbid
> your children from using the phone. -Dave
-------------------
Actually a majority of states punish ANY attempt to deprive a child
of the right to call police or emergency services, and if you try
you can be imprisoned!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500, pob...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
> >
> >SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
> >state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
> >Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
> >conversation.
> >
> >
> >"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
> >said mom Carmen Dixon, 47.
>
> That *is* ridiculous.
>
> Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
> electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
> place using her property, just as an employer has the right to monitor
> employees' emails, phone calls, and even keystrokes. Minor children
> should have no expectation of privacy.
-----------------
Legally wrong.
> What's next?
---------------
The improved observance of the Rights of Children.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> dragonlady wrote:
> > In article <31tnc5F...@individual.net>, "Dave C."
> <mdu...@sff.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > That *is* ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for
> the
> > > > electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication
> taking
> > > > place using her property
> > >
> use the
> > > phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy
> while
> > > using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the
> child
> > > shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you
> don't trust
> > > your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her,
> then your
>
> > When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled
> it
> > differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
> > rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone
> calls
> > at my discretion.
>
> You don't necessarily have to give you kid advance notice. The problem
> with the phone monitoring, in many states, is that the third party has
> a legal expectation of privacy. If you could bug your kid's room and be
> able to listen to just her side of the conversation, you would probably
> have no legal worries.
>
> The way I read the article originally posted, the issue privacy issue
> was applied to the other party in the conversation, not the daughter.
>
> Your daughter's expected level of privacy is controlled at your
> discretion.
--------------------
And as soon as you reveal to her that you violated HERS, HER discretion
will forever exclude you from her life. Sort of like: You get just
one look, and never ever again. Fool me once, piss on you, you don't
GET twice!! People who fuck with their kids have a death-wish.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> In article <31tnc5F...@individual.net>, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > That *is* ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
> > > electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
> > > place using her property
> >
> > No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
> > phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
> > using it. If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
> > shouldn't be on the phone at all. Put another way . . . if you don't trust
> > your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
> > child shouldn't be using the phone, period. -Dave
> >
> >
>
> When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
> differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
> rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
> at my discretion.
>
> some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
> time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.
--------------------------
People who dishonor their children that way GET dishonored BY their
children. A friend of mine who hated her father used to plant things
in her father's sock drawer for her mother to find, receipts carefully
altered, porno, etc. Those who fuck with their kids are destined to be
fucked BY their kids.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:41:25 -0500, "Dave C." <mdu...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> >> That *is* ridiculous.
> >>
> >> Mom pays for the phone, she pays for the computer, she pays for the
> >> electricity; she has the right to monitor the communication taking
> >> place using her property
> >
> >No, it's not ridiculous at all. The mother can ALLOW the child to use the
> >phone. If she does, then the child has an expectation of privacy while
> >using it.
>
> not? And forget that crap about how you "signed your rights away" when
> you joined the company; I've worked plenty of jobs in my life and
> never signed such a document, yet I know that my phone calls and email
> can be monitored by my remployer at any time.
--------------------
They provide the equipment solely for you to perform their business,
not yours.
> It's a basic right the
> employer has - I don't need to sign anything for it to be in effect.
------------
True. But the relationship is inherent, like using their printer.
> >If the mother can't live with those terms, then the child
> >shouldn't be on the phone at all.
>
> If the child doesn't want to be monitored, she can buy her own phone
> service. Pre-paid cell phones are widely available - no credit check
> required.
-----------------------------
When you let anyone use your telephone, you surrender your control
of it and have no right to invade their privacy. When you provide a
phone ONLY for THEM to perform YOUR business purposes, the burden is
quite different.
When you try to bar your child from using a phone in their residence
for their own private purposes, you're asking for them to do hateful
things to you which you will fully deserve.
> >Put another way . . . if you don't trust
> >your child to use the phone without illegally spying on him/her, then your
> >child shouldn't be using the phone, period.
>
> I guess you feel the same way about the GPS tracking device I have
> installed in the car that my teenaged son drives? ;)
-------------------------------
Creative vandalism. Somebody sure must have wanted that GPS, Pop!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.
---------------
In California as in many states both ends of any conversation
must agree to be taped.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On 10 Dec 2004 13:18:54 GMT, gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> >>>>>It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.
> >>>
> >>>>recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
> >>>>is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
> >>>>made.
> >>>
> >>>Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.
> >>
> >>Incorrect. It's a federal determination (wire tap). Local state regulations
> >>cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in
> >>California.
> >
> >Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be")
> >in different states.
>
> No, federal supersedes local. Always has and always will.
----------------
Nope. TV-mythology.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On 10 Dec 2004 12:09:43 GMT, gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> >>>It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.
> But, again, recording/wire-tap laws are determined at the federal level. Any
> state laws are superseded by federal law anyway.
-----------------------------------------
Nope. TV-mythology. Even the federal courts have to award warrants
congizant of state laws in which they are applied.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:32:50 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> <sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:14 -0500, Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On 10 Dec 2004 13:18:54 GMT, gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
> >>>>>>is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
> >>>>>>made.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.
> >>>>
> >>>>Incorrect. It's a federal determination (wire tap). Local state regulations
> >>>>cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in
> >>>>California.
> >>>
> >>>Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be")
> >>>in different states.
> >>
> >>No, federal supersedes local. Always has and always will.
> >>
> >
> >Everything I've ever heard on this subject suggests that Gordon is
> >correct.
>
> While states may impose their own laws IN ADDITION to federal laws, they
> cannot put a law on the books that contradicts federal law.
>
> Look at all the mess going on now with gay marriage and trying to make a
> constitutional amendment. That would eliminate any/all state laws that say
> it's OK.
----------------------
State rights vs federal subsumption is more complex than merely the
word: "contradicts". The State cannot forbid that which is subsumed
under the federal assurance of human rights or any and all high court
interpretations of that effect, and of the commercial effects of
over-reaching federal law, but things not so directly banned by
federal aegis are game for state control.
Steve
Tom
> Funny how consistently those who say "Amen" to ignorance reprove
> their own.
> Steve
Ignorance?
I have raised children to adulthood. I agree with most all this man had
to say. I merely used 'Amen' to state that.
If you've raised children and had the misfortune to have your child
misdirected by the child of parent(s) that do not raise them properly,
you would agree as well.
I gave trust first and when proven wrong, I reacted to the situation and
did what had to be done. As long as they are in MY house...Screw my
childrens rights! I have the right to raise children that don't cause me
any more problem than life has to offer. Raise your children correctly
now or visit them in prison later.
Bottom line...I raise my children so that you don't need the police to
protect you and if everyone did, this world would be a much better place
to live!
--
Tom
"That man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest."
-Henry Thoreau
R. Steve Walz
>
> R. Steve Walz stated so wisely:
>
> > Funny how consistently those who say "Amen" to ignorance reprove
> > their own.
> > Steve
>
> Ignorance?
>
> I have raised children to adulthood. I agree with most all this man had
> to say. I merely used 'Amen' to state that.
Proving yet again that the ignorant are too ignorant to even KNOW
they're ignorant, you piece of Xtian crap.
> If you've raised children and had the misfortune to have your child
> misdirected by the child of parent(s) that do not raise them properly,
> you would agree as well.
-----------------------------------------
You're the only kind of human shit who do that.
> did what had to be done. As long as they are in MY house...Screw my
> childrens rights!
------------------
Your recklessness screws their lives, and yours.
> I have the right to raise children that don't cause me
> any more problem than life has to offer.
--------------------
You got nuthin'. You have the right to do right, not to do wrong.
> Raise your children correctly
> now or visit them in prison later.
------------------------
My kids aren't in prison, but lots of kids from shit like you are.
> Bottom line...I raise my children so that you don't need the police to
> protect you and if everyone did, this world would be a much better place
> to live!
> Tom
---------------------
You imagine the exact opposite to what is true.
YOU and the shit in your head causes child criminality.
Your attitude is what causes children to become mass-murderers.
You just don't grasp that because of your ignorant pride.
Steve
DeWayne
<shanaj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102694513....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have to laugh, I think Dave C. is a lawyer. The minute I remove the
> phones from my house because I can't trust my kids, then when there is
> an emergency and something happens to my minor child, I will be
> considered an irresponsible parent because they can't call 911 and I'll
> be sued by my kid and the child welfare department. Where is the
> common sense here. Parents are responsible for their minor childs
> actions.....PERIOD. Parents, do what you must to keep your kids safe!
>
The Child Protective Services are highly corrupt. They don't know a thing
about raising kids properly. Most of the case workers don't even have kids
and are most likely to lie on you in a heartbeat! Tread carefully. Case
workers should not have absolute immunity, and neither should judges and
prosecutors!
DeWayne
Jeff
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:41BA67...@armory.com...
> shanaj...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
>
> Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how
> the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same
> treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't
> trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you
> were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their
> hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a
> mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then
> you DESERVE ALL the results!!
>
> Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE,
> is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they
> want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!!
> Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Spoken by a true non-parent. You are so full of shit you must
have brown eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still
have a problem child,,, obviously you have NO experience at this or
your kids are in the less than 10 age which is when some really start to
rebel. All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation
marks tells me you have an agenda,, or are you a 16 year old.
What a dumb ass. Read a book dumbfuck.
Jeff
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004
Mike Rosenberg
> Spoken by a true non-parent.
Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean
I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent.
--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius
Jeff
"Mike Rosenberg" <mi...@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote in message
news:1gommnw.dzb9ba1ixf8a0N%mi...@POSTTOGROUP.invalid...
> Jeff <oldog@(nospam)mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Spoken by a true non-parent.
>
> Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean
> I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent.
>
I dont care. He obviously is one of the holier than thow types
and doesnt have a realistic grasp of human nature. I know I am most
likely quite senior to him and have seen many, many cases of good-
bad parenting and the results defies his so called pie in the sky attitude
of parent-child relationships. Human nature or parent child relationships
are not mathematical equations where 2 +2 = 4 like he desperately
wants everyone to believe, by his rantings. Quite honestly he comes
accross as a cross posting lunatic.
Bob Ward
<sloth...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>So if you thought your daughter was dating a "bad boy" type who was no
>good for her, you'd eavesdrop on their phone conversations and try to
>intervene?
>
>Not me. Some things people just have to learn for themselves. ;)
>
>--
>Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad you contradict yourself in every message you post.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:41BA67...@armory.com...
>> shanaj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>
>>
>> Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how
>> the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same
>> treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't
>> trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you
>> were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their
>> hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a
>> mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then
>> you DESERVE ALL the results!!
>>
>> Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE,
>> is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they
>> want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!!
>> Steve
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>
> Spoken by a true non-parent. You are so full of shit you must
>have brown eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still
>have a problem child,,, obviously you have NO experience at this or
>your kids are in the less than 10 age which is when some really start to
>rebel. All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation
>marks tells me you have an agenda,, or are you a 16 year old.
>What a dumb ass. Read a book dumbfuck.
>
>Jeff
>
Reading a book is probably part of the problem, not a solution. It
sounds like everything he knows is based on books he has read, with no
real experience to show the difference between theory and practice.
Mike Rosenberg
> > Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean
> > I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent.
>
> I dont care. He obviously is one of the holier than thow types
> and doesnt have a realistic grasp of human nature.
Ah, now that's a whole different thing altogether.
> Quite honestly he comes accross as a cross posting lunatic.
A lunatic perhaps, but not a cross-posting one. When you see him
cross-posting, it's because he's responding to a message that's already
cross-posted.
Jeff
"Bob Ward" <bob...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ohmmr0h2822an2p0k...@4ax.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
You may very well be right on that point.
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> > Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how
> > the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same
> > treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't
> > trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you
> > were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their
> > hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a
> > mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then
> > you DESERVE ALL the results!!
> >
> > Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE,
> > is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they
> > want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!!
> > Steve
>
You're delusionally wrong. I've got two raised and off on their own
in their late twenties and early thirties. Son 31 and daughter 28.
> You are so full of shit you must
> have brown eyes.
-----------------
The only shit you see is in YOUR head, behind YOUR eyes.
> Parents can and some do "everything" right and still
> have a problem child,,,
--------------------
Nope, nonsense, never ever seen it.
In fact, what you think doing "everything right" then
MUST BE WRONG, Shithead!!
You have some psychologically DEFECTIVE pet notions that
YOU just don't want to see go down in FLAMES, but they do!
They really do!:
You see, control freaks like you fuck up everything
you touch, your marriages, your children, your lives.
> obviously you have NO experience at this
----------------------
WWRRRRONNGGGGOOO!!!!
> or
> your kids are in the less than 10 age
------------------------
WWRRROONNGGOO AGAIN!!!!
> which is when some really start to rebel.
----------------------------
Hint!: Hey, King BigShit.
Your "colonists" don't rebel unless you TREAT THEM LIKE SHIT!
Mine didn't at ALL, because they NEVER HAD TO!
It isn't a necessity, you know!
Well no, you don't know, do you?
Rebellion is a symptom of ABUSE in a chronically child-abusive
culture like THIS one!
> All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation
> marks tells me you have an agenda,
-------------------------------
Damn straight, the RIGHT ONE!
I want to see the people like you who fuck up children STOPPED!
> or are you a 16 year old.
-------------------------
Nope, born in 1950. I'm 54.
> What a dumb ass. Read a book dumbfuck.
> Jeff
-----------------------------
Already read them.
(Also wrote some big hunks of several others.)
And if YOU had you'd know that they agree with ME,
you child-abusive dipshit.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:50:37 GMT, "Jeff" <oldog@(nospam)mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:41BA67...@armory.com...
> >> shanaj...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >>
> >> Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how
> >> the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same
> >> treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't
> >> trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you
> >> were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their
> >> hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a
> >> mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then
> >> you DESERVE ALL the results!!
> >>
> >> Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE,
> >> is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they
> >> want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!!
> >> Steve
>
> >have brown eyes. Parents can and some do "everything" right and still
> >have a problem child,,, obviously you have NO experience at this or
> >your kids are in the less than 10 age which is when some really start to
> >rebel. All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation
> >marks tells me you have an agenda,, or are you a 16 year old.
> >What a dumb ass. Read a book dumbfuck.
> >
> >Jeff
> >
>
> Reading a book is probably part of the problem, not a solution. It
> sounds like everything he knows is based on books he has read, with no
> real experience to show the difference between theory and practice.
No, you're just another idiot from this abusive culture who can't
fathom how respecting others can "really" work.
This culture has people living in little separate locked boxes a
few feet apart because they all want to remain socially inept and
unable to get along with others without controlling them.
THEN they try to run that on their children who HAVE to live with
them and then these clowns WONDER WHY THEIR KIDS KNOCK THEM ON
THEIR ASS AND LEAVE!
Most Americans aren't mature enough and have never been taught how
to relate to others in close quarters as other than dominant or
submissive roles. So they try to control everyone instead of
respect them. I was able to accept living as an equal with others.
I have two children of my own, raised and out on their own, both
computer professionals, M 31 and F 28. Now I didn't oppress MY
kids, which is why they didn't have to rebel, you moron.
Most parents try to control their kids simply because they did so
when the child was helpless out of stupid inane convenience, and
because bullying seemed simpler to them, they could get away with
it, however immorally, so they just did it!!
Then they KEPT doing it as a way to avoid maturing and to avoid
letting their child mature. They have a fear of change in their
relationships, and can't figure out that this cripples their
children's natural development path.
But Americans are raised to be such abused socially defective
neurotic little primadonnas that they are unable to function in
other than the abject stupid simplicity of a master-slave
relationship!
American neurotic society is quite sickly sado-masochistic.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> "Mike Rosenberg" <mi...@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1gommnw.dzb9ba1ixf8a0N%mi...@POSTTOGROUP.invalid...
> > Jeff <oldog@(nospam)mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Spoken by a true non-parent.
> >
> > Except that he _is_ a parent. Now, please don't construe this to mean
> > I'm taking a stand on what he wrote, but he _is_ a parent.
> >
>
> and doesnt have a realistic grasp of human nature.
You mean I'm someone you SHOULD have learned respect for and just
admitted that I'm someone who had learned more than you and from
whom you should learn. But you're such an ill-raised little egotist
that it would damage you emotionally to permit that awareness.
Like most emotionally immature Americans you fancy that anyone who
disagrees with your grunting inability to express yourself at depth,
or anyone who thinks deeply on an issue, is "unrealistic", which
actually means that you're alienated from the truth about your
sick sick culture.
> I know I am most
> likely quite senior to him
-----------------
Are you over 54? And are you actually mature? I doubt it.
> and have seen many, many cases of good-
> bad parenting and the results defies his so called pie in the sky attitude
> of parent-child relationships.
-----------------
The pie isn't in the sky if you get to eat it, moron.
The pie is quite tasty for me and MY family, yours is sour grapes!
Don't tell us it can't be done merely because YOU don't
want to do it the right way!
> Human nature or parent child relationships
> are not mathematical equations where 2 +2 = 4 like he desperately
> wants everyone to believe, by his rantings.
--------------------
The math works just fine for anyone who doesn't have your neurotic
emotionally defective agenda against accepting it. Abusers always
want to claim that "ideal methods of treating others don't really
work" when what they mean is that they couldn't stop themselves
from misbehaving and abusing others!!
> Quite honestly he comes accross as a cross posting lunatic.
> Jeff
-----------------------
Criminals personalities always think juries and judges are insane.
I post here, if others add newsgroups to annoy or attract others,
I ignore them.
Steve