Talk:Telephone tapping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Telephone tapping and Voice Logging is used in different industries
I disagree that the subjects of telephone tapping and voice logging should be split. These are different technologies used in different industries. Telephone tapping is a technology used in the security industry to intercept calls on public telecommunication networks. The purpose for this is to analyse these intercepted calls in order to find evidence required to prosecute suspected criminals or terrorists. These calls are intercepted without the suspect being aware of it. Voice logging is a technology that is used in the call center industry. Calls to private communication systems are recorded for the purpose of resolving legal disputes and quality control of call center agents. These calls are recorded with the caller aware of the fact the the conversation is being recorded.
Although the basic recording equipment is very similar, the software applications that control the recorders differs significantly.
Yeah, I think it should be changed back ,or make wiretap redirect here. Also, this sentence doesn't make any sense, or is hard to follow: "Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation".
The title should be changed (back?) to the more general term "wiretapping", and content of this article should include internet issues.
The first version of text of this article was taken from http://secdocs.net/manual/lp-sec/scb7.html which is licenced under the GFDL, and hence can be used in Wikipedia
- Are you sure about this? That document includes invariant sections that may not be removed. Unless we include those invariant sections in the article, I believe that the article is in violation of the license. AlexanderWinston 15:58, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
Anyone want to add the US Navy's tapping exploits in the Barents Sea?
I tried to make the article less US-centric. In an international encyclopedia, comments on legal matters should generally be localized to a certain country, or at least to a class of countries with similar legislation. David.Monniaux 14:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Legal Status
The Bush Administration has repeatedly asserted and acted under the doctrine of executive unitary power, that the president may take steps to ensure the protection of Americans, beyond those legally excluded by federal law. In theory, the president may order wiretapping on whomever he so chooses. Gonzales has been suggesting there are other surveillance programs in operation. Could I suggest this article be updated considering the president has acted this way since September 12, 2001, instead of implying that western democracies have strict, defined guidelines on how telephone tapping is conducted. - Shiftchange 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of State Statutes
I corrected to remove Michigan from the list of states that require two-party consent. As both a former reporter and a now-practicing attorney, I can tell you that Michigan most certainly does not require both parties to consent to the recording of a telephone call. As long as one party to the call is doing the recording, the call can be recorded without violating the law. Both parties must consent if a third party wishes to record the call, however. This has been settled law since 1982: in Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich.App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that because the Michigan legislature defined eavesdropping as listening in on (or recording) the conversations of “others,” the legislature specifically excluded recordings made by participants of those conversations from the eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c). This opinion has been repeatedly endorsed by the courts in Michigan.
[edit] Tapping
I have a problem with this section and before I change it wish to discuss it here:
"Recording the conversation - the person making/receiving the call records the conversation using a coil tap ('telephone pickup coil') attached to the ear-piece, or they fit an in-line tap with a recording output. Both of these are easily available through electrical shops. A more modern alternative is to use telephone recording devices connected to computers, such as PhoneValet Message Center. Most who record telephone conversations, such as journalists, will refer to the recording for their work."
First of all - this is NOT Tapping - that requires a 3rd party to record the conversation of parties 1 and 2. This is straight forward RECORDING. Moreover I wish to change it to reflect that it's perfectly legal to record conversations within the uk (and you don't have to inform the other person on the phone).
--Charlesknight 13:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] George Bush and Wire Tapping
I was hoping this controversy would have it's own article. Well if not " The most recent case of U.S. wiretapping was the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy discovered in December 2005. It aroused much controversy, after several people accused President George W. Bush of violating a specific federal statute (FISA) and the United States Constitution. The president argued his authorization was consistent with other federal statutes (AUMF) and other provisions of the Constitution, was necessary to keep America safe from terrorism, and could lead to the capture of notorious terrorists responsible for 9/11."
this got resolved some right? Some courts ruled it was illegal? Mathiastck 09:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Home taping
Everything I have read about this is contradicted someplace else. In Illinois, two party consent is necessary. However, most of the people at businesses and government agencies think that permission to record only applies to them. For example I had this conversation yesterday.
Other person: This phone call is being recorded.
Me: Yes it is.
[pause]
Other: You are recording it?
Me: Yes.
[long pause-he was talking to somebody else]
Other person: You do not have my permission to record the conversation.
Me: It is a two way street.
Other person: You cannot use this recording in a court of law.
Most of the time they just hang up.
I have read some of the Illinois statutes, however, I cannot find any precedence or case history of how they have been interpreted.
[edit] Merge (and split) suggestion
It was suggested to merge Voice logging (and Telephone recording, which turned out copyvio) to merge into Telephone tapping. I concur with this idea, since the topic is basically the same.
At the same time, since the article becomes quite large, I would suggest to split some logical subarticles , one of them being Techical means for telephone tapping or something, keeping in mind for possible overlap with the "Covert listening device" article.
Another IMO quite separate topic is Mobile phone location and tapping, from section Telephone tapping#Location data and other articles, such as GSM localization and others in Category:Mobile telephony. `'mikka 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
