| 
 Posted by Nigel Brooks on 07/11/06 17:39 
"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message  
news:7RudlWBk28sEFwNX@zen54488.zen.co.uk... 
> In message <4hhoanF1rqvlfU1@individual.net>, Nigel Brooks  
> <nbrooks@msn.com> writes 
>>The person asking the question was from the UK and it might be perfectly  
>>legal for a private individual to make a consensual recording. It is not  
>>illegal for individuals to tape conversations providing the recording is  
>>for their own use, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000  
>>(RIPA). 
> 
> Rubbish. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can be read at:  
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--b.htm#1 
> 
> It's scope is clearly defined in Clause 1 as relating to "a public postal  
> service or a public telecommunication system". It also make it clear that  
> it's scope is restricted to interception of transmission by means of a  
> public or private telecommunication system. 
> 
> I do wish that people did not take things completely out of context (or in  
> this case - out of scope). 
> 
> I'd argue that it is transparently clear that the OP's recording of a  
> face-to-face conversation without one party's permission or knowledge can  
> never be interpreted as an interception of a transmission of a  
> telecommunication system. 
> --  
> Tony Morgan 
> http://www.camcord.info 
 
And I'd argue that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 
 
It is a fact that it is perfectly legal for an individual to covertly record  
a consensual conversation made by means of a public or private  
telecommunications system. 
 
It follows that if it is permissable to consensually record a conversation  
made over the wire - it is also permissable to record a face to face  
conversation consensually. 
 
There is far more of a privacy interest in communications conducted by  
telephone than there is in a face to face confrontation. 
 
The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual  
recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no  
blanket authorization or prohibition. 
 
--  
Nigel Brooks
 
  
Navigation:
[Reply to this message] 
 |