This is why I do not respect the law, and will sup****t any fascist
dictator****p that lines up lawyers against the wall for slow
strangulation off meat-hooks. (Really, I'm serious. Lawyers, bankers,
middlemen-parasitic types...should be tortured before they're killed.)
That's such bull****, not only to have no peace and quiet, but to be
found guilty oneself of invasion of privacy. Ha.
Mike Rieves wrote:
>
>
> According to U.S. law (and most states as well, though in a few states
> it's illegal unless all parties are aware of the recording), it's okay
to
> record a conversation as long as at least one party to the conversation
is
> aware that a recording is being made. If you aren't a party to the
> conversation and none of the actual participants is aware that a
recording
> is being made, it is not legal to record it, no matter whose property it
is
> on and who might overhear the sounds. If it were just loud music or just
> noise, he might have been okay, but if any part of any conversation
recorded
> was intelligible, Mr Garrett broke the law. In this case, there were
> multiple conversations going on, and it would have been impossible for
Mr
> Garrett to be a party to all of them. The reason I know about this is
that
> something similar happened in my city, and the guy doing the recording
(a
> prominent citizen) had to pay a very hefty fine.
|
