http://www.law.com/professionals/techlaw.html/#news

At the url above you will find an article regarding a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which in essence stated that you cannot expect privacy in anything you say on the telephone. Extreme? The conclusion is there. I recommend looking at the Supreme Court's opinion. George Orwell is here.

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), August 22, 2001

Answers

Looking at it from the other direction, IMO the private citizen should have the right to tape any incoming call to his/her residence---just as we have the ownership right to any mail that we receive, we should have the ownership right of any phone call that we receive (not that we initate).

So fair warning, any calls that you make to me might be recorded; any remarks might be used against you.

-- Lars (lar@indy.net), August 22, 2001.

One of the things you learn quickly practicing law is not to believe anything you read in the popular press regarding legal decisions. This appears to be a case in point. What the article really says is not that you don't have an expectation of privacy on the telephone, but that the cops have the same right everyone else has (in most states) to tape their own telephone calls. The article says that the court held:

"the state constitution does not require the commonwealth to obtain a probable cause determination from a neutral judicial authority before one of its agents may initiate a telephone call made to a person's home and then tape that conversation."

Does this surprise anyone? All it says is apparently the following. The cops call you at home and say "did you kill your wife." You say "why yes I did." Later, when they arrest you, you deny ever saying anything. Unfortunately, the cops taped the call. The Court said this was OK, and did not require a prior warrant.

Indeed, I'd suspect that Pennsylvania has a very liberal court, or this would not even have been an issue. The modern trend is the prefer (if not require) that all police/citizen interactions be taped or videoed. Reason -- it means the cops were not lying when they said you confessed.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), August 22, 2001.

The mentality of the justification bothers me. Just because it is so easy for people to illegally intercept and tape conversations, you should not expect the legal protection of being informed when it is done, or the legal protection of it not being admissible in court.

Does this mean that if it is easy for someone to steal your car than you should expect it to be stolen, and have no legal recourse if it is stolen? Just because a crime (or illegal action) is easily accomplished shall the illegality be ignored or justified?

Just because drive by shootings are so easily accomplished, will we ignore the laws against them?

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), August 22, 2001.

Just remember not to say anything on the phone you wouldn't want to see on a court docket.

-- helen (pro@bono.take.it.or.leave.it), August 22, 2001.

EH:

Read one of the dissenting opinions here:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-52-2000-do.pdf

Of course, I invite you to read the majority opinion, and the other dissenting opinion as well. It was a sharply divided court, and the dissents were made with vim and vigor.

As you yourself state, as can be inferred, do not trust what you read in the press. It is the article writer's opinion. Check it out.

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), August 23, 2001.

This reminds me of the controversy regarding E-mail and internet conversations being monitored. I guess if I were plotting to overthrow the government or something, I'd be concerned. As it is, I don't care WHO overhears. That infrared "look through your walls" thing is kindof scary, though. Then again, I doubt we do anything inside that isn't done in 99% other households.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 23, 2001.

Anita, the "problem" isn't defined by what the authorities see when they look, but by the kind of power they acquire by having the "right" to look wherever they want for whatever reasons they think are sufficient.

It's sort of like the electric shock you felt as a kid when you wondered if God could see your thoughts all the time and you might have to go to hell and burn for all eternity as punishment for "wrong" thoughts. It kind of made you want to think only pure thoughts, didn't it?

I want to keep government well short of having godlike powers.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), August 23, 2001.