California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians
eackerma at u.washington.edu
Thu Jul 13 03:35:59 PDT 2006
without their consent - regardless of where you are.
Many people, especially reporters, are familiar with state laws
prohibiting phone conversations from being recorded without the
consent of one or both parties to the call. Some states, and federal
law, require only 1 party to consent, other states require both or all
parties to consent. California is one such 'all-party' consent state.
(Think Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky talking about her boss,
or the floridian couple recording Newt Gingrich coordinating his
ethics probe with John Boehner, as past examples of this distinction.)
Well today, the California Supreme Court found that Georgia-based
employees of the Solomon Smith Barney brokerage who were taping
California customers with out notice or consent violated California
laws, even if they might have been complying with Georgia's '1 party'
While the court refused to fine the brokers, finding their reliance on
Georgia law reasonable, it did enjoin them from taping Californians in
Case is here:
This decision will likely have a large impact on investigative
reporting, and has definite impacts on other areas of privacy and
consumer protection law as well.
You are subscribed as eugen at leitl.org
To manage your subscription, go to
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
----- End forwarded message -----
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy