Comment by anigbrowl
15 years ago
Indeed, although they're surprisingly inconsistent (at least as regards telephonic conversation): http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm
I don't really see any qualitative difference between that and logging IMs, it's just that the latter is technically much easier to do. But as a record of a private conversation between two people, I feel it ought to be subject to the same evaluations of admissibility.
Not really, since IMs are expected to be logged they can even be subpoenaed, but a recording made outside of a warranted wiretap would not be admissible evidence.
Ditto email, log files and so on, basically any textual communication is subject to subpoena, but the 'spoken word' is expected to be transient unless you have a microphone stuck in your face or have been warned very explicitly that one is present.
No that's not true. A private person can privately record any conversation he or she wants. (Remember Monica?)
Warrant requirements only apply to government action, meaning the government itself or someone acting on the government's behalf. If you talk to someone on the phone and that person records you on his own, without government inducement, then the court will consider the recording hearsay but admissible at trial under a few exceptions to the hearsay rule.
The world is larger than the USA, and twelve US states have laws forbidding the recording of private conversations without all parties consent.
1 reply →
Yes, but my point is that the written word now encompasses the kind of ephemeral that would never have been preserved in the past.
That's absolutely true, after all, IM messages are more on the level of 'brainfarts' than a carefully considered letter would be.
But since people are being sued and fired over tweets it seems safe to assume that those kinds of communications now carry the same weight as every other written form.
1 reply →
Not exactly correct, afaik, email to your lawyer is considered privileged and can't be subpoenaed.