Do you know of a good voice activated voice recorder that uses AA
batteries?

A while back, I had an air conditioning guy try to swindle me (he told me
point blank after I paid him $200 to test my AC that I needed an entire
new air conditioning system when the problem wasn't even related to the
home AC. The problem was a bad circuit breaker in the main fuse panel!).

So, from now on, I want to RECORD these guys quoting me stuff, just in
case.

My wife uses an Olympus VN-8100PC, is voice activated and lasts for about
24 hours - and the MP3 files can be transferred by USB to the PC - but
the batteries are AAA (triple A) and I hate triple A things!

Do you know of a good voice activated voice recorder that uses AA
batteries?

PS: Is it legal to stick a voice recorder in my pocket when talking to
these guys? (I think it is but I'm not in the legal profession.)
-------------------
Why you ask do I hate AAA? Because they give have the life for the same
amount of money as AA and because I then have to stock yet another size
battery when I'm already stocking C (kids toys) and D (flashlights) and
9V (smoke alarms), and my battery charger doesn't handle AAA batteries,
etc.

James Gagney wrote:
Do you know of a good voice activated voice recorder that uses AA
batteries?

A while back, I had an air conditioning guy try to swindle me (he told me
point blank after I paid him $200 to test my AC that I needed an entire
new air conditioning system when the problem wasn't even related to the
home AC. The problem was a bad circuit breaker in the main fuse panel!).

So, from now on, I want to RECORD these guys quoting me stuff, just in
case.

My wife uses an Olympus VN-8100PC, is voice activated and lasts for about
24 hours - and the MP3 files can be transferred by USB to the PC - but
the batteries are AAA (triple A) and I hate triple A things!

Do you know of a good voice activated voice recorder that uses AA
batteries?

PS: Is it legal to stick a voice recorder in my pocket when talking to
these guys? (I think it is but I'm not in the legal profession.)
-------------------
Why you ask do I hate AAA? Because they give have the life for the same
amount of money as AA and because I then have to stock yet another size
battery when I'm already stocking C (kids toys) and D (flashlights) and
9V (smoke alarms), and my battery charger doesn't handle AAA batteries,
etc.

I had to make secret recordings once at work. They told me to do it. I had
to keep changing batteries. I had to do it for hours. I don't see you
needing much time.

Greg

James Gagney wrote:

PS: Is it legal to stick a voice recorder in my pocket when talking to
these guys? (I think it is but I'm not in the legal profession.)

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California, Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, and Washington).

Best do a web search.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

James Gagney wrote:

PS: Is it legal to stick a voice recorder in my pocket when talking to
these guys? (I think it is but I'm not in the legal profession.)

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California, Connecticut,
Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, and Washington).

Best do a web search.

So ask for their consent. As a contractor, I might think it a little
strange, but it wouldn't be a deal breaker unless your plan is to lie.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:07:30 +0000, thunder wrote:

So ask for their consent.

I don't think you need consent to record a conversation between two
people standing right next to each other - but the idea of asking them is
similar to the tactic I used when calling phone support.

I 'tell' them I'm recording it - that way I ensure they give more honest
answers, even though I'm not recording it.

In article ,
James Gagney wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

He just stated that he doesn't have a cite. "Absence of evidence ..."

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
.....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.

On Sep 19, 1:23*pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:





On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." *It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. *Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party. A I recall, the last big stink over
this kind of recording came up a few years ago when a
motorist recorded a cop during a routine traffic stop. The
guy was arrested for it. Really dumb. I think it was Maryland.

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:23:44 -0500, deadrat wrote:

On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.

I noticed "confidential". You make a point.

"man-on-the-street" -- BTDT

Stuck a recorder in the middle of a desk once (Florida). People talk
funny when they know they are being recorded. They get all pleasant;
stuff like that.

Six months later they wrote even more into the federal policy. Heck,
they can teach classes about me.

On Sep 19, 12:05*pm, James Gagney
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Yes, look up the wiretapping laws...

You can make recordings of people when the devices used
to make the recording are not concealed, when in public no
consent is required... Covert recordings require two-party
consent unless you want to be slapped with a wiretapping
charge...

On 9/19/2012 9:05 AM, James Gagney wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?


Here is a good web site to use

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law

On 9/19/12 1:21 PM, Evan wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:05 pm, James Gagney
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Yes, look up the wiretapping laws...

You can make recordings of people when the devices used
to make the recording are not concealed, when in public no
consent is required... Covert recordings require two-party
consent unless you want to be slapped with a wiretapping
charge...

None of these statements is true in general. Anyone who wants to record
conversations legally needs to check the laws of his jurisdiction.

Most laws pertain to wiretapping and not face-to-face conversation, but
California's law is broader.

Some states require only one-party consent, so that you can record your
own phone conversations; some states require two-party.

When consent is required and denied, it will be no defense to claim that
the device was "not concealed."

Generally, there is no expectation of privacy in public, but
California's law covers "confidential" conversations.

On Sep 19, 1:51*pm, richard wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Most such laws pertain to telecommunications (wire tapping) devices.
If the conversation is truly "in the public eye", then there is no need to
ask permission. As expectation of privacy has been diminished.

That's how tv camera crews get away with video recording people being
investigated by the cops.

Even though bad ass cops who don't know the laws will use their muscle and
get you to stop recording.

Just record it. If it gets to court, let the judge decide.

Which judge? The civil case judge if he sues the contractor and
the judge won't allow the recording as evidence because
it's illegal? Or the criminal judge after the contractor has
criminal charges filed against him for making an illegal
recording?

As was correctly pointed out, in a few states it's a criminal
offense to make a recording as the OP intends to do.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:





On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party.

You may need to check back on that
To the best of my knowledge Open recording where the participant KNOWS he is
being recorded is legal, since effectively with the knowledge the
participant is implying consent
The alternative is to state that the conversation is over if the
recording continues.



A I recall, the last big stink over
this kind of recording came up a few years ago when a
motorist recorded a cop during a routine traffic stop. The
guy was arrested for it. Really dumb. I think it was Maryland.


Meanwhile, a Federal Appeals court has declared that recording police is a
constitutionally protected right in the best interest of society
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5618/federal-court-rules-videotaping-police-is-a-first-amendment-right/
" The filming of government officials engaged in their duties
in a public place, including police officers performing their
responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles.
Gathering information about government officials in a
form that can readily be disseminated to others serves
a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and
promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218"
Not sure if the US Supreme Court has ruled on that



It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

Covert recordings require two-party
consent unless you want to be slapped with a wiretapping
charge...

Giggle.

"James Gagney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

In any case, it is an unenforceable crime, so I will (and do) break it
regularly. I purchased a Tascam GT-R1 recorder which is small enough to hide
in my pocket, sensitive enough to pick up any and all conversations (and
music) in the area, and has excellent fidelity. So the liberals stupid law
can't be enforced anyway, and was made to be broken by all reasonable human
beings.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:





On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party. A I recall, the last big stink over
this kind of recording came up a few years ago when a
motorist recorded a cop during a routine traffic stop. The
guy was arrested for it. Really dumb. I think it was Maryland.

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

From my long observation of the American scene, I can tell you that it is
only illegal if a conservative records the stupidity of a liberal. In all
other instances, it is perfectly legal...:^)

"richard" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Most such laws pertain to telecommunications (wire tapping) devices.
If the conversation is truly "in the public eye", then there is no need to
ask permission. As expectation of privacy has been diminished.

That's how tv camera crews get away with video recording people being
investigated by the cops.

Even though bad ass cops who don't know the laws will use their muscle and
get you to stop recording.

Just record it. If it gets to court, let the judge decide.

Yeah, but if you are using a multi- hundred/thousand device, such as an
expensive camera, you risk getting it trashed by the cop and/or person you
are recording. This is where, the new electronics really comes to your aid.
They are making devices that are so small they can actually run them up your
arteries and take pictures of your insides. It would be very easy to install
such a device in your car that would record the cop while you are getting a
ticket without his knowledge. After all, the cops themselves do it with
their bait cars, and use the recordings in court against the car thief. (as
well as sell them to the TV show producers)

On 9/19/12 2:04 PM, Atila Iskander wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:





On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party.

You may need to check back on that
To the best of my knowledge Open recording where the participant KNOWS
he is being recorded is legal, since effectively with the knowledge the
participant is implying consent
The alternative is to state that the conversation is over if the
recording continues.



A I recall, the last big stink over
this kind of recording came up a few years ago when a
motorist recorded a cop during a routine traffic stop. The
guy was arrested for it. Really dumb. I think it was Maryland.


Meanwhile, a Federal Appeals court has declared that recording police is
a constitutionally protected right in the best interest of society

http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5618/federal-court-rules-videotaping-police-is-a-first-amendment-right/

" The filming of government officials engaged in their duties
in a public place, including police officers performing their
responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles.
Gathering information about government officials in a
form that can readily be disseminated to others serves
a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and
promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218"
Not sure if the US Supreme Court has ruled on that



It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

On 9/19/12 3:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

"James Gagney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

In any case, it is an unenforceable crime, so I will (and do) break it
regularly. I purchased a Tascam GT-R1 recorder which is small enough to
hide in my pocket, sensitive enough to pick up any and all conversations
(and music) in the area, and has excellent fidelity. So the liberals
stupid law can't be enforced anyway, and was made to be broken by all
reasonable human beings.

The "liberals [sic] stupid law" is there to protect your privacy and
everyone else's.

On 9/19/12 3:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:





On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party. A I recall, the last big stink over
this kind of recording came up a few years ago when a
motorist recorded a cop during a routine traffic stop. The
guy was arrested for it. Really dumb. I think it was Maryland.

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

From my long observation of the American scene, I can tell you that it
is only illegal if a conservative records the stupidity of a liberal. In
all other instances, it is perfectly legal...:^)

From my long observation of misc.legal, I can report that you're an
abyssal ignoramus. Those on alt.home.repair are given fair warning.

On Sep 19, 3:04*pm, "Atila Iskander" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." *It's illegal in Calilfornia to record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties have
an expectation of privacy. *Generally, you don't have an expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. *And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party.

You may need to check back on that
To the best of my knowledge Open recording where the participant KNOWS he is
being recorded is legal, since effectively with the knowledge the
participant is implying consent

Check back on what? I said:

"And it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without informing
the other party."

That is consistent with what you just posted.


It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?- Hide quoted text -


Yes. Tripp was indicted and I think it got as far as some
pretrial hearings on what evidence could be used, etc. Her
case was unique in that she had
received immunity from prosecution in exchange for her
testimory in the Lewinsky case and that covered a good
portion of the recordings and case against her. Ultimately
the prosecution dropped the case.

On Sep 19, 5:09*pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 3:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:







"James Gagney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

In any case, it is an unenforceable crime, so I will (and do) break it
regularly. I purchased a Tascam GT-R1 recorder which is small enough to
hide in my pocket, sensitive enough to pick up any and all conversations
(and music) in the area, and has excellent fidelity. So the liberals
stupid law can't be enforced anyway, and was made to be broken by all
reasonable human beings.

The "liberals [sic] stupid law" is there to protect your privacy and
everyone else's.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know on what basis BG concludes it's a liberal law.
It's a law in a few states. I don't know the history of how those
laws were passed and by whom and I doubt BG does either.
That kind of privacy issue, concerning what someone may or
may not record, could just as well be argued by a conservative
as well as a liberal

wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:09 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 3:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:







"James Gagney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record
a conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says
you can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record
man-on-the-street conversations.

Do you have a cite?

In any case, it is an unenforceable crime, so I will (and do) break
it regularly. I purchased a Tascam GT-R1 recorder which is small
enough to hide in my pocket, sensitive enough to pick up any and
all conversations (and music) in the area, and has excellent
fidelity. So the liberals stupid law can't be enforced anyway, and
was made to be broken by all reasonable human beings.

The "liberals [sic] stupid law" is there to protect your privacy and
everyone else's.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know on what basis BG concludes it's a liberal law.
It's a law in a few states. I don't know the history of how those
laws were passed and by whom and I doubt BG does either.
That kind of privacy issue, concerning what someone may or
may not record, could just as well be argued by a conservative
as well as a liberal

Its very simple. If the law is unenforceable, then it is a stupid law.
Therefore it must have been conceived of by, and implimented into law by,
liberals... QED

Bill Graham wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:09 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 3:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:







"James Gagney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record
a conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says
you can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record
man-on-the-street conversations.

Do you have a cite?

In any case, it is an unenforceable crime, so I will (and do) break
it regularly. I purchased a Tascam GT-R1 recorder which is small
enough to hide in my pocket, sensitive enough to pick up any and
all conversations (and music) in the area, and has excellent
fidelity. So the liberals stupid law can't be enforced anyway, and
was made to be broken by all reasonable human beings.

The "liberals [sic] stupid law" is there to protect your privacy and
everyone else's.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know on what basis BG concludes it's a liberal law.
It's a law in a few states. I don't know the history of how those
laws were passed and by whom and I doubt BG does either.
That kind of privacy issue, concerning what someone may or
may not record, could just as well be argued by a conservative
as well as a liberal

Its very simple. If the law is unenforceable, then it is a stupid law.
Therefore it must have been conceived of by, and implimented into law
by, liberals... QED

You see, only a dumb liberal would be too stupid to be able to forsee the
day when cameras and digital recorders would become so small that they could
be carried in rings, necklasses and wris****ches. The fact that Morton
Gould, back in the forties, conceived of cell phones that could be carried
on te wrist don't make no never mind to a liberal idiot. So any law that
outlaws clandestine recording/photographing, is, or at least will be,
unenforceable.... Also, they can make its use in court illegal, but thast is
also stupid, because courtrooms are, or should be, interested in the truth,
and recording devices are manufactured for the primary purpose of aiding in
the discovery of truth. So, eventually, they will have to be legalized no
matter how hard stupid people work to keep them out of the courtroom. Some
things are so easy to predict that even a dumb liberal should be able to do
so......

Well, that depends. Are we talking traditional US case law, or how the Oh
Bomb Us adminstration enforced things?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"deadrat" wrote in message
...
On 9/19/12 3:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

From my long observation of the American scene, I can tell you that it
is only illegal if a conservative records the stupidity of a liberal. In
all other instances, it is perfectly legal...:^)

From my long observation of misc.legal, I can report that you're an
abyssal ignoramus. Those on alt.home.repair are given fair warning.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:23:44 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties
to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying
or recording device,

Hey. I once was pulled over by a cop, and I argued with him, and he
pulled out a recorder, and turned it on.

Was that then illegal?

James Gagney wrote:
Do you know of a good voice activated voice recorder that uses AA
batteries?

A while back, I had an air conditioning guy try to swindle me (he told me
point blank after I paid him $200 to test my AC that I needed an entire
new air conditioning system when the problem wasn't even related to the
home AC. The problem was a bad circuit breaker in the main fuse panel!).

So, from now on, I want to RECORD these guys quoting me stuff, just in
case.

My wife uses an Olympus VN-8100PC, is voice activated and lasts for about
24 hours - and the MP3 files can be transferred by USB to the PC - but
the batteries are AAA (triple A) and I hate triple A things!

Do you know of a good voice activated voice recorder that uses AA
batteries?

PS: Is it legal to stick a voice recorder in my pocket when talking to
these guys? (I think it is but I'm not in the legal profession.)
-------------------
Why you ask do I hate AAA? Because they give have the life for the same
amount of money as AA and because I then have to stock yet another size
battery when I'm already stocking C (kids toys) and D (flashlights) and
9V (smoke alarms), and my battery charger doesn't handle AAA batteries,
etc.

Just get it in writing.

Greg

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:58:47 +0000, James Gagney wrote:

Do you know of a good voice activated voice recorder that uses AA
batteries?

UPDATE: The California voice recording law is apparently thus:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law

California Recording Law

Note: This page covers information specific to California. For general
information concerning the use of recording devices see the Recording
Phone Calls, Conversations, Meetings and Hearings section of this guide.
California Wiretapping Law

California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California
makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential
communication, including a private conversation or telephone call,
without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal
Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e.,
conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable
expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation.
See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A
California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use
of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California
v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-
public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're
recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that
no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the
reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual
circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in
the clear simply because you are in a public place.

If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of
all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you
might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to
criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose
you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal
Code § 637.2.

Consult The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's Can We Tape?:
California for more information on California wiretapping law.
California Law on Recording Court Hearings and Public Meetings

Court Hearings

In a California state courtroom, you may be able to use a recording
device if specific requirements are met. Anyone may use an inconspicuous
personal recording device for note-taking purposes with the advance
permission of the judge. For photographing, recording (other than as
above), or broadcasting a court proceeding, you must file official media
coverage request forms. These forms must be filed with the court at least
five days before the event to be covered. The court has broad discretion
to grant or deny such requests based on a number of factors. See Rule
1.150 of the California Rules of Court for details.

Federal courts in California are part of the Ninth Circuit. In Ninth
Circuit appellate proceedings, cameras and recording devices are
permitted at the discretion of the presiding panel of judges. To get
permission, you need to file an Application for Permission to Photograph,
Record, or Broadcast from the Courtroom three days in advance, although
the panel can waive the advance notice requirement. Recording devices and
cameras generally are prohibited in federal district courts in California.

For information on your right of access to court proceedings, please
consult the Access to Government Information section of the guide.

Public Meetings

If you attend a public meeting (i.e., a meeting of a governmental body
required to be open to the public by law) in California, you may make an
audio or video recording unless the state or local body holding the
meeting determines that the recording disrupts the proceedings by noise,
illumination, or obstruction of view. Cal. Gov't Code § 11124.1(a); Cal
Gov't Code §§ 54953.5(a),-.6.

For details on your right of access to public meetings, see the Access
section and the The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's Open
Government Guide: California.

For information on your right of access to public meetings, please
consult the Access to Government Information section of the guide.

On 9/19/12 6:37 PM, James Gagney wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:23:44 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties
to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying
or recording device,

Hey. I once was pulled over by a cop, and I argued with him, and he
pulled out a recorder, and turned it on.

And then he apparently proceeded to beat you senseless. Did you file a
complaint?

Was that then illegal?

Not in California. Not only were you in public -- where else could you
have been "pulled over"? -- and thus had no expectation of privacy, but
the law explicitly makes exceptions for LEOs in the performance of their
duties.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 3:04 pm, "Atila Iskander" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record
a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says
you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to record
a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties
have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an expectation
of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party.

You may need to check back on that
To the best of my knowledge Open recording where the participant KNOWS he
is
being recorded is legal, since effectively with the knowledge the
participant is implying consent

Check back on what? I said:

"And it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without informing
the other party."

That is consistent with what you just posted.


Actually, you need to read with more care
Most of the recording laws have NOTHING to do with open recording
When the recorder is obviously present, participation implies consent

I'll wait for you to cite the actual laws that you claim to be in force.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 5:09 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 3:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:







"James Gagney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

In any case, it is an unenforceable crime, so I will (and do) break it
regularly. I purchased a Tascam GT-R1 recorder which is small enough to
hide in my pocket, sensitive enough to pick up any and all
conversations
(and music) in the area, and has excellent fidelity. So the liberals
stupid law can't be enforced anyway, and was made to be broken by all
reasonable human beings.

The "liberals [sic] stupid law" is there to protect your privacy and
everyone else's.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know on what basis BG concludes it's a liberal law.
It's a law in a few states. I don't know the history of how those
laws were passed and by whom and I doubt BG does either.
That kind of privacy issue, concerning what someone may or
may not record, could just as well be argued by a conservative
as well as a liberal

So you don't know where and when what laws were passed, but you still assert
that such laws are in force ???
Hello ???
Come back WHEN you can cite ACTUAL law to support you claim to be somewhat
credible.

On 9/19/12 8:37 PM, Atila Iskander wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 3:04 pm, "Atila Iskander" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sep 19, 1:23 pm, deadrat wrote:
On 9/19/12 11:22 AM, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:06 +0000 (UTC), James Gagney
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to
record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that
says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

Search the state statutes or court rulings.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html

The relevant section of the California statutes:

quote section="632" paragraph="a"
Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
....
/quote

The key word is "confidential." It's illegal in Calilfornia to
record a
conversation without permission of all parties, when those parties
have
an expectation of privacy. Generally, you don't have an
expectation of
privacy in public, so "man-on-the-street" interviews are probably
safe
to record, but if it ever came to court, a jury would decide.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've heard this discussed many times in the media. And
it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without
informing the other party.

You may need to check back on that
To the best of my knowledge Open recording where the participant
KNOWS he is
being recorded is legal, since effectively with the knowledge the
participant is implying consent

Check back on what? I said:

"And it is true that in a few states it's against the law to record
conversations, even those that occur face to face, without informing
the other party."

That is consistent with what you just posted.


Actually, you need to read with more care
Most of the recording laws have NOTHING to do with open recording
When the recorder is obviously present, participation implies consent

As far as I've looked, which isn't into all 51 jurisdictions, most
recording laws concern wiretapping. California's law is different, and
it applies to face-to-face conversations. In addition, the law doesn't
mention "open" recording or use the words "participation" or "present."
The law talks about consent. Knowing participation is evidence of
consent, but whether it implies consent would be up to a jury.

I'll wait for you to cite the actual laws that you claim to be in force.

May I play? California Penal Code, Sections 630-638.

There. Your wait is over.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:58:18 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Not in California. Not only were you in public -- where else could you
have been "pulled over"? -- and thus had no expectation of privacy, but
the law explicitly makes exceptions for LEOs in the performance of their
duties.

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions.
But, my read of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

On 9/19/12 9:51 PM, James Gagney wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:58:18 -0500, deadrat wrote:

Not in California. Not only were you in public -- where else could you
have been "pulled over"? -- and thus had no expectation of privacy, but
the law explicitly makes exceptions for LEOs in the performance of their
duties.

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions.
But, my read of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

How could it be an exception for you? You weren't doing the recording.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
James Gagney wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:33:24 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Believe it or not, in a few jurisdictions it IS illegal to record a
conversation without both parties consent (California

I'm in California - and I don't see anything in the web that says you
can't stick a recorder in your pocket to record man-on-the-street
conversations.

Do you have a cite?

He just stated that he doesn't have a cite. "Absence of evidence ..."

I did NOT say I didn't have a cite. Where'd you come up with that amazing
claim?

From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
"Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties
to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes
hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there
are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to
the taping."
http://expertpages.com/news/taping_conversations.htm

Specifically:

California Penal Code #632
"(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties
to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or
recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication,
whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500),
or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state
prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment..."
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/632.html

deadrat wrote:

It also was an issue in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal because
as I recall, Linda Tripp had recorded phone conversations
without the consent of the other party, which was illegal in
whatever state she lived in.

And did she get prosecuted for it ?

Yep. Maryland.

Not prosecuted due to federal immunity.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:52:59 -0500, deadrat wrote:

I was pulled over in public. And, the law has exceptions. But, my read
of the law was that it was an exception for ME.
Not for him.

How could it be an exception for you? You weren't doing the recording.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Here's what happened:
a) He pulled me over for speeding (34 mph in a 25 mph zone)
b) I said I wasn't speeding & that I wanted to see the radar reading
c) He got nasty verbally - and then after a few sentences where I said it
was my right to see the reading - he pulled out his recorder and turned
iton
d) Truthfully, I didn't even realize what he was doing when he fumbled
with his shirt pocket until I got back in the car and was waiting for the
ticket. It was only then I realized he got 'nice' only AFTER he turned
the recorder on and said a bunch of things which sounded like he was
ALREADY in court.
e) Afterward, I realized he changed his attitude for the recording and I
wished I had said "you didn't say that a minute ago" or something like
that to put it on his own recording.

Anyway, all that is over (I paid the ticket because it's easier not to
fight it).

Reading the California law, it seems that I can record the conversation -
but that HE can not without my consent. You might assume that I gave
consent because he turned it on in front of me - but - I didn't realize
what it was at the time and he certainly didn't ask me for permission.

So, may I ask:
Given the California law we all read which gives an exception for
recording 'government' activity without prior consent:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
Does that law also give the GOVERNMENT that right - (i.e., does it give
the police the right to record the traffic stop on a hand held device) or
does it give the only the PUBLIC the right to record government activity
without consent?