Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfb.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!ptsfa!ptsfb!che From: che@ptsfb.UUCP (Mitch Che) Newsgroups: net.consumers Subject: Re: Telephone Rate Hike - Pacific Bell Message-ID: <209@ptsfb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 03:02:21 EDT Article-I.D.: ptsfb.209 Posted: Fri Aug 9 03:02:21 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 04:21:53 EDT References: <1845@amdahl.UUCP> <69600027@hp-pcd.UUCP> <10892@rochester.UUCP> <474@brl-tgr.ARPA> Reply-To: che@ptsfb.UUCP (Mitch Che) Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco Lines: 29 Summary: Recording devices and beeps In article <474@brl-tgr.ARPA> ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie) writes: >> If I remember correctly, such a device is also quite illegal. I >> believe that any device that records phone conversations is supposed to >> emit a periodic "beep" to let people know they are being recorded.... > >Not true. It is illegal to tape a call with out knowledge of the parties. >In some cases, it doesn't need to be both parties. The beep is not required, >but is a standard way of indicating to both sides that the conversation >is being recorded. In this state, Pac Bell's tariffs don't permit recording without the beep outside of a few exceptions. The beep requirement has nothing to do with the Federal Laws concerning wiretapping which makes it a crime for anyone to "intercept a telephone call, unless that person has first obtained the consent of one of the parties actually participating in the call". Note that Federal Law only requires the consent of one party. California State Law requires the consent of ALL parties... The beep requirement is not law - recorders could just as much be required to provide mooing sounds every 15 seconds... (Farms? In Berkeley??... [insert moo]... Sorry, local humor... :-) -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell --------------------------------------- disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer, too (415) 823-2438 uucp: {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfb!che