Slashdot Mirror

I guess it's possible for someone under the age of 20 to have not seen either format. I'm certain there are children who have never seen either.

For this to go any further, I guess we would have
clarify what we mean by:

"Since I saw"
"Have never seen"

For me, I take it as seen anywhere, not just in person.
I mean, we don't learn everything we are taught by being
at the point of origin or subject.

Is that where we are having a divide?

For instance, I was watching a show the other day
and in one of the scene pans, there was a collection
of gold records on the wall.

I consider that... "seeing a record".

Plus, I DJ'd for quite a while and until the Pioneer CDJ
came around, I was still handling a lot of vinyl, a very
esoteric experience not shared by a large pop.

And that is why I would allow the 8-track as "never
having been seen" Because unless you see a period
movie or show or documentary, you won't even see
one of those on "TV". And no one uses or refers to
them either. Well, casually, I mean.

In fact, you're more likely to see a reel to reel than
an 8 track on a show. I was watching a rerun of
"The Wire" and they popped out a reel to reel.
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1119&bih=812&q=reel+to+reel+tape+recorder
http://www.pimall.com/nais/pivintage/aiwarecorder.html

-AI

I think having special shirts would tend to alienate y'all from the rest of the company if they were sufficiently different from what everyone else wears on an everyday basis. Not to mention that they would be like a target on your backs, as several other people have suggested above.

Badges, on the other hand... those might work. They're 1) less obvious; 2) removeable (in a way that a company-logo uniform is not); 3) quite stylish if done right. Plus, have you heard the phrase "badge of honor"? They might give your department some swagger!

I got my info from here, the first result when googling "12 states two-party recording."

The third link says:

Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Which is, of course, eleven states. I don't care enough to find out more--I already know that my state (PA) is one of 'em.

The Sony walkman would have the same quality of headphones that come w with a set of PC headphones (Labtec etc...).

But 32K of memory would take up an entire circuit board.

A 1970's cellphone is probably the closest thing that would match.. If you really want, you can buy a working replica Brick cellphone.

Like it or not, ubiquitous surveillance is exactly the kind of society we're headed toward.

With today's technology we have this
http://www.peppersprayinc.com/eyeglasses_camera.htm
and this
http://eyeglasscamera.com/
and this
http://www.pimall.com/NAIS/sunglasscam.html
and this
http://www.spycentre.com/body_worn_video.htm
- ... now just flash forward ten years and try to imagine just how utterly impossible it will be to completely avoid the possibility of covert surveillance and recording.

Get used to it, because in a few more years anything you do that is interesting, annoying, or otherwise memorable will be posted to the equivalent of youtube, by somebody, within seconds.

And I rather doubt DEFCON can impose any boilerplate contractual terms on its' attendees. Most would revolt! Few would agree the sky is blue.

Because they couldn't just use a GPS tracker to begin with, and cellphone batteries last forever, right?

On the plus side, someone stole your phone? Left it in a cab? Not sure? Now you can be. It's easy enough to defeat if you don't want to be tracked (turn the GPS function off, or the phone) and there are security measures in place to ensure that not just anyone can track the phone. Could they be defeated? Well, if it's got a web interface, then it's only secure as that is.. But I would wager that some sicko driving by is more likely to just snatch a kid than go through the hassle of trying to hack into their phone tracking system. It might happen, but if a system does largely more good than harm, it's acceptable. We make the same concessions for all technology, from cars to planes to power lines.

Regardless, if this program was not available, it would not prevent bad people from doing bad things, but by enabling parents to keep tabs on their children, it gives people peace of mind. Also, the article (or at least one of the versions I read earlier on Google news) explicitly states that this is aimed at the small child, not teens who would just be clever enough to bypass it anyway; by leaving the phone where they're supposed to be and forwarding the calls, for example.

Tracking someone is already easy to do. Yes, Verizon makes it easier for a stalker by doing the method you mention, but it'd be kind of silly. What's the battery life of a typical cell phone? A week, maybe? Also, there's the not insignificant chance that the target would find the cell phone.

I don't know how it is in Canada, but here in the USA, taping a phone call without informing the other party is very much against the law, unless you have a specific wire-tap court order.

Though I thought that the recorded conversation was in person, not over the phone, which might change things even more. (And finally, it's in Canada, so US law shouldn't apply at all, as you've already mentioned.)

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html - synopsis of laws regarding recording phone calls, by state.

From http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html/

"The federal law makes it unlawful to record telephone conversations except in one party consent cases which permit one party consent recording by state law. What that means is a person can record their own telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party in those states that allow one party consent."

There are twelve states that require all party consent. They are:

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan , Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington.

There are 38 states that permit one party consent. See the URL for more details.

Federal and FCC regulations are "one-party" regulations. Only one party, that's you, needs to know the conversation is being recorded. However, this applies to private, non-commercial, conversations only. Business have different rules.

You are correct that several states do have additional laws in place, however, not all of them mentioned need all parties involved to be aware. Some are "two-party" regulations where two of people in the conversation need know, even if it's a three way call.
At least according to this

Illinois is a two party consent state. You can record, but you have to ask if it's ok first. Oh, and they have to say yes.

Not letting them know would be considered eaves dropping and is what constitutes a violatation of the "eaves dropping" law.

Um, since when did you need their permission? You're a party of the conversation you can record it all you want.

There are twelve states that require permission from both sides of a phone call for it to be recorded. This site has the list.

Hints for a better recording session:

1. Bring along a camera strobe/flash unit, attached to telescoping rod.
2. Wait for the lights to go out, then sneak to the back of the theater.
3. Use strobe flash to temporarily blind night-gogglers in projection booth.
4. Swear loudly, then remember to close own eyes next time.
5. Gosub Step 3.
6. ???
7. Profit!

Kids, don't try this at home. Void where prohibited. Professional driver on closed course. If you're caught, the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions. My thoughts are my own.

A list of states with their number of party consent requirement is available here.

It's an actual chip, I believe.

I also don't see any way that said chip could survive a jolt from a stun gun (chosen for its small size, this one could probably go to the store with you)

Amir Lieberman, the developer of the system, is also responsible for the previous rash of questionable truth detector software, which happens to be still available. It did recommend training, and it was widely sold for its ability to work over the phone. It even has a sequal. (warning, Not compatible with Opera. Probably not Mozilla.)

Namesysco doesn't claim very high accuracy for the Truster software. "The voice analyst achieved an overall accuracy rate of 78% for truthful subjects and 61% for deceptive subjects." In other words, only 10% more liars were caught than flipping a coin, while 22% of innocent subjects were considered lying.

The American Polygraph Society does not have a much rosier view of the situation. They have concluded that Computerized Voice Stress Analysis, and specifically the Truster software, has only a "chance-level detection of deception,"

And actually, the dead giveaway to the scam should be from the lion's mouth himself. "Our products were originally for law enforcement use ? we get all our technology from Nemesys-co ? but we need more development time [for that application]" In other words, "our products don't work and can't be sold unless you slap a 'for entertainment purposes only' label upon them. Our products are to 'entertain' airport security."

Good catch.

Actually, it is- as one poster said "what, do you copyright everything you write?" The answer is no- as an anonymous poster pointed out, I don't have to- the Berne Convention does it for me. That makes it 100% illegal for you to reproduce, modify, etc- in any means(including electronic) the document, except under fair use. Obviously storage of the email doesn't apply- it's commonly understood by the sender that the email has to be stored at several points along the journey. Same thing for mailing lists- people know mailing lists are archived, and that they go to zillions of people.

and btw -- you can definitely tape-record a conversation as long as ONE of the parties involved gives their consent

Good point- I had it wrong, it's the berne convention, not wiretapping/taping laws. HOWEVER- your statement is wrong as well, it varies GREATLY state to state. In CA, it is completely illegal to tape any conversation, phone or otherwise, unless all parties are aware of the recording; this was reinforced in a 2002 CA supreme court ruling.

If it's interstate, you fall under federal laws as well(one party). I found a great page here that seems to be written by/for PI's; these guys have a LOT at stake(they can loose their licenses, and since most of what they record could end up in court, they could end up in jail, too), and several note that the 'strictest' rule applies in an interstate call- ie, state A, state B, or federal- whatever's strictest. Ie, if state XY has a all-parties law, but you call from YZ, XY can still go after you.

(otherwise, answering machines would be illegal... duh!)

Eh? Most people capable of dialing telephones realize you're being recorded when you leave a message on an answering machine. If you were to then sell that message to the local TV station, well, I dunno about that- it could probably still be argued that you has a reasonable expectation that the communication was private- ie, only would be heard by members of the household.

I'd have figured they'd have all been Bought Now pretty quickly.

Nah. The supply ran dry briefly when Enron bought them all up, but then they dumped them back onto E-Bay just in time for the Arthur Andersen buy-up, who then dumped them back on E-Bay just in time for the California government Oracle debacle...

At which point they the E-Bay supply did briefly dry up because California did an internal transfer of the machines to their INS Center.

But they dumped them back on the market in plenty of time for Global Crossing Inc. to buy them up and subsequently dump them back on the market for ICANN to buy them up.

The tobacco companies however, do not participate in E-Bay auctions. They have standing policies on shredding documents. They keep "document shredders located 'throughout the building', as well as of a 'disintegrator' in the basement". Apparently they have to shred so many documents that they still have to "contract with security firm Group 4 to shred those less sensitive papers".

And, and an added bonus, here's a link to THE ART OF RECONSTRUCTING SHREDDED DOCUMENTS.

-

Obviously YANAL. Federal law requires the consent of only one party to the conversation, and Federal law has limited application to intra-state calls. State laws vary. Most states (including Oklahoma) require only one-party consent.
First Google result for "telephone recording law."

Isn't taping a phone call without both party's knowledge/consent illegal?

The legality of phone call taping is, as far as i can tell, governed by state law. Therefore the legality of taping a phone call without the consent of both parties would vary depending on what state the phone call took place in. (If the call happened across state lines, i assume federal law would have jurisdiction.)

I found this rather informative webpage on google, and it claims that in Oklahoma you only need the consent of one of the parties involved in order to record a phone conversation. So your answer is: No.

(P.S. : That page also claims further down the page that federal law only requires the consent of one party, and that federal law also takes jurisdiction if you go and make the call from an indian reservation or the lobby of a federal building. Which is kind of interesting and probably totally accurate, but not very relevant considering both parties involved here were in oklahoma.)