more on California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians without their consent - regardless of where you are.

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

might work against corp who do business in Cal

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: July 14, 2006 9:52:23 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Re: [IP] California Supreme court prohibits recording  
Californians without their consent - regardless of where you are.


Dave,

My "I'm not a lawyer" analysis of this ruling suggests that its
enforceability may be problematic against entities who do not have a
physical nexus here in California.  It's this state by state
variation in 1-party vs. multiple-party laws on recording that has
made the interstate situation so complicated, and it's not clear
that anything short of changes at the federal level will be able to
harmonize these laws.  Obviously, I'd prefer to see all states
forced to abide by the multiple-party (all-party) standard, since
the current situation is utterly loophole-ridden.


--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
   - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com

 - - -

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma () u washington edu>
> Date: July 13, 2006 3:35:59 PM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians
> without their consent - regardless of where you are.
>
> Greetings Dave,
> 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'
> consernt laws.
>
> While the court refused to fine the brokers, finding their reliance on
> Georgia law reasonable, it did enjoin them from taping Californians in
> the future.
> Case is here:
> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S124739.PDF
>
> 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.
>
>
> -Ethan
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as lauren () pfir org
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/