Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Mikester, 10 Mar 2004 @ 11:09am

  
  

  Don't think so

  Sorry, but I don't think that applies. By your logic, just having a conversation implies consent to record it by whatever means.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (profile), 10 Mar 2004 @ 11:18am

    
    

    Re: Don't think so

    No, I'm saying that since it's a written communication, they were "making the recording" themselves - which suggests consent to have it recorded.
    
    A regular conversation isn't being recorded. A typed message is, by default, being recorded. It's like complaining that the answering machine recorded my message. Of course it did - that's what it's designed to do, and by talking to it, I consent to be recorded.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Mike, 10 Mar 2004 @ 2:57pm

      
      

      Re: Don't think so

      While I'm not a lawyer (either, it would seem), doesn't the EULA of some IM services indicate that by installing/using their software, you are agreeing to let someone look at your chat content? I thought I read this somewhere deep in the bowels of the MSN IM client EULA.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Greg, 10 Mar 2004 @ 6:11pm

      
      

      Re: Don't think so

      This is faulty logic on two fronts. Just because your typed conversation is digitized and transferred, doesn't mean it has to be stored or recorded. A transcript of traffic to my website is stored in the web server logs, but it doesn't have to be. The server can just serve up the pages and not record who it sent them to.
      
      And second, if your IM client stores the conversation, that doesn't mean mine did.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Mike (profile), 10 Mar 2004 @ 6:50pm

        
        

        Re: Don't think so

        I still disagree. The fact that it's written down (no matter where or how it's stored) is a "record" of the conversation. The fact that after I've typed something you can still see it proves that. It's not like you see one letter I type each second and then it disappears from your screen. By typing it, you are recording it on the other person's screen. What they do with that recording (keep it, toss it, etc) doesn't matter. It's still a recording and you know it as you type it.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          beck, 10 Mar 2004 @ 9:17pm

          
          

          Re: Don't think so

          So if a deaf person uses a TDD machine for a phone call, it does not have the same protection as a voice phone call?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          Joe Baderderm, 11 Mar 2004 @ 12:16pm

          
          

          Re: Don't think so

          Is your argument the same as using letters or postcards as eveidence? In any case, it would be a bad precedent to allow this defense to have any merit. The lawyer was trying to get with a 14 year old girl!
          
          

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2004 @ 4:27pm

          
          

          Re: Don't think so

          The fact that it's written down (no matter where or how it's stored) is a "record" of the conversation.
          So with a VOIP phone, since the conversation is digitized, u r saying it is okay for someone to use the phone conversation as evidence with out ur permission.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Patrick, 11 Mar 2004 @ 4:22pm

  
  

  communication medium

  Calling IM a 'recording' presupposes it is not primarily a communication medium, but a system for recording conversation. Telephone answering machines are for recording, while the telephone network itself is for communication. If the conversation was a series of posts on a newsgroup, this argument would hold water. Otherwise, the issue is expectation of privacy--non-existant in a public chat room, but possible with IM.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2005 @ 6:24am

  
  

  No Subject Given

  the patriot act permits ISPs to record transmissions, legally, by the way.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Joe B, 14 Mar 2008 @ 5:12pm

  
  

  IL eavesdropping law

  Illinois law permits recording conversations if one of the parties believes the other party is engaged in a criminal offense against them or family member.
  
  So if the victim was under-age then it it was ok to record the conversation.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]