Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:08 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2001 7:08 pm 
Wiretapping and taping in person? What's the connection between the two? Sounds twisted to me. How about video cameras mounted on poles and in bathrooms taping you, is this the same or different?

------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2001 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
Florida law prohibits recording a person without their consent when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, except in public meetings or gatherings. Zaslaw's lawyer said Goss didn't have that expectation because there were 30 students in the classroom.


That should be the end of it... Whether it is or not is another matter, but public comments (which I contend a classroom constitutes) are just that... public. The teacher needs to spend more time teaching and less time trying to pull crap on a student... IMNSHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Asked by Allen M:

How about video cameras mounted on poles and in bathrooms taping you, is this the same or different?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different! the courts have consistently upheld that the taping and wiretapping provisions only apply to the audio and that you can be videoed without your consent or knowledge as long as there is no audio track! I know that's messed up, but it's true. In fact, two cases that were very similar. In one a man put a video camera into a women's dressing room at a store "to protect from shoplifting". The store had a history of huge shoplifting looses. He was still convicted of a crime because he also left the audio turned on! Second case, an apartment building super put hidden video cameras all around a young woman's apartment. Even though he had no other reason than his voyeurism, he was allowed to plead out to a misdemeanor of "invasion of privacy" (or some-such) simply because the technicality was that there was no case! Why? Because they were video only cameras without any audio and therefore didn't violate the illegal taping/wiretapping laws! Like I said, it's messed up, but there is a difference. Beware, even one of those little flecks on the suspended ceiling in your office or apartment could be a video camera with the new technology that is out... and they can transfer the data via RF or other methods that don't even need wires.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2001 8:27 pm 
I was quizzled because audio taping of classes in college is often done. Ok, lets crank this one to a new level.

Videotaping with sound [as customary] at places such as the multi-annual Uechi regionals, GEM's summer camp. Multiple camcorders are present during these events. How does the law read here?

------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2001 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Allen M.:
I was quizzled because audio taping of classes in college is often done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its considered a "public forum" and shouldn't be a problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Ok, lets crank this one to a new level.

Videotaping with sound [as customary] at places such as the multi-annual Uechi regionals, GEM's summer camp. Multiple camcorders are present during these events. How does the law read here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, 1) public forum; 2) GEM's event, he can tape it if he wants or give permission to others; 3) the only time you might be in trouble is if someone specifically says they don't want to be taped; 4) that's why on most seminar application/registration forms (when it's going to be taped) there is a release paragraph/clause. If someone doesn't want to be taped at one of those venues, they should get over it, 'cause they really don't have any case for claiming that they didn't consent. By allowing the taping of themselves to take place knowingly, they've essentially consented.

Than again, IANALNDIPOOTV! Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 5:56 am 
I cannot believe this state is going to prosecute a friggin' teenager for some crap like this!

news:Abrf-recording-chargeURFBj_BFS@clari.net

[deleted due to copyright infringement]

[This message has been edited by Tony-San (edited March 02, 2001).]


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 5:58 am 
Looks like that teacher got a swift kick in the ass!

Message-ID: <Arecording-chargeURx1D_BFS.R-a2_BFS@clari.net>


[deleted due to copyright infringment]

[This message has been edited by Tony-San (edited March 02, 2001).]


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 927
Location: Long Island
Where's the kick in the ass? That teacher is a certified moron. All the kids should have protested and boycotted her class.

The school should never have le the complaint be filed in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Florida's law is similar to one in Maryland that Linda Tripp was
accused of violating by recording conversations with Monica
Lewinsky about her affair with former President Clinton. The charge
was dropped when Lewinksy refused to testify.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, they didn't have a case to begin with. Why? Because the FBI helped Tripp do some of the taping, she was given immunity by the special prosecutor for the other recordings... and there was a certain level of knowledge/consent. The charge against Tripp was pure harassment for being a "whistle-blower" and she was also protected under the Federal "whistle-blower's" rules.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The most notable Florida case involved a couple who were fined $500 each in 1997 for using a scanner to tape former House Speaker
Newt Gingrich's cellular phone discussion of his ethics problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This couple were allowed to cop a plea from the more serious felonies of "illegally altering a scanning device to pick up cordless phone frequencies" and "illegal wiretapping" (each worth 5-20 years at Club Fed) to "possession of an illegal scanning device" (a misdemeanor that ranges from the slap on the wrist they got up to 2 years). A law was passed years ago that made it 1) illegal to modify scanners to pick up cordless/cellular phone frequencies and 2) require the manufacturers of scanners to make thier products "not easily converted to pick up cordless/cellular phone frequencies". The scanner that was used to intercept Gingrich's conversations on his cordless phone (not a cellular) was a newer model with extensive and deliberate alterations to pick up the specific frequencies his cordless phone operated on. The reason the couple ended up getting convicted at all was because their lame story that they just happened to be in Gingrich's neighborhood and just happened to have the scanner on and just happened to pick up his conversations and just happened to have a tape recorder handy... well, even though there was a push from the top to cut them loose, the Dems figured out right quick that if these folks got a slide, then someone else might just happen to start picking up their conversations! Oops! Image I heard about an LEO that had one of these illegal scanners in his patrol car and would cruise neighborhoods listening for people talking about "illegal activities". Image Fortunately, that became a moot (or in this case a mute Image ) point with the new digital technologies. New digital cell phones are virtually impossible to crack and the newer cordless phones that run in the 900 MHz band with DSS (digital spread spectrum) transmissions can't simply be picked up by a scanner anymore. If you have an analog cell phone, think about changing to digital... besides it's cheaper. If you have an old analog or lower direct bandwidth cordless phone, think about buying a new one... besides it's better reception and goes farther.

Just a friendly tip from a big "cheshire" cat. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 3:10 pm 
I agree with the father, that teacher subjected a good student to this crap.

She should be fired!


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 3:12 pm 
I think this is probably the school:
http://www.santarosa.k12.fl.us/nhs/


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30064
Really. Talk about morons. And they are school teachers? Possibly a reason why students want to beat the crap out of some "teachers" these days.

No wonder the country is in such a state of disarray.

the parents should file a civil suit against the teacher and the school for intentional infliction of emotional injury.

------------------
Van Canna


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 4:28 pm 
I emailed the principal of the school and expressed my distaste with the situation. I suggested that the teacher should be fired simply because her head in not in the right place.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2001 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 51
Location: Climax, MI U.S.A.
"This complaint was made by a private citizen who is no longer a teacher at this
school."

Looks like they did the right thing, and canned his butt!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2001 5:19 am 
I got this reply from the principal (note it says today as the 28th so I suspect this was written yesterday and is inserted into replies to the school on the subject).

---
Navarre High School did not institute nor participate in a criminal
complaint against a student for tape recording a teacher's lecture. This
complaint was made by a private citizen who is no longer a teacher at this
school.

Our Code of Student Conduct would prohibit the use of electronic
devices by students in the classroom. However, permission can be granted by
the teacher when a student requests to utilize a recorder for educational
purposes. No permission was sought in this case and the student was
counseled regarding the policy. No disciplinary action was instituted by
the school against the student.

The determination to pursue this matter criminally is not within the
purview of the school, but rests with the State Attorney's office. The
school is not encouraging any criminal prosecution. Hopefully this matter
can be resolved rapidly and in a reasonable manner.

[Note: Navarre High School received word at 1:15 today, February 28, that
the lawsuit has been dropped.]


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2001 6:42 am 
Sorry I had to delete the news article. I found out Clarinet offers a reward for copyright infringments on their articles. I figured i'd better just get rid of them.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group