Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site cae780.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!cae780!gordon From: gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) Newsgroups: net.consumers Subject: Re: Telephone Rate Hike - Pacific Bell Message-ID: <1201@cae780.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 16:28:10 EDT Article-I.D.: cae780.1201 Posted: Wed Aug 7 16:28:10 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 03:56:02 EDT References: <1845@amdahl.UUCP> <69600027@hp-pcd.UUCP> <10892@rochester.UUCP> <308@tove.UUCP> Reply-To: gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) Organization: Tektronix, Inc. (CAE Systems Division), Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 21 In article <308@tove.UUCP> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: > >I read somewhere that it's legal to record from phone lines without a beep >as long as the recording device is coupled to the line acoustically rather than >electronically. In fact, I suspect that that's how telephone answering >machines manage to record messages legally without beeping periodically. >Can anyone confirm this? Sixty Minutes covered something on that topic a couple of months ago. Although it is a state (vs. Federal) issue, it is never legal to record if neither party is aware of it, but in some states it is legal if at least one party is aware that the conversation is being recorded. There was no mention of acoustic vs. physical tapping being significant. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs, leadsv, teklds}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 1333 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 [until we move ... soon] AT&T: (408)745-1440 Down 44 1/4 pounds, and counting ...