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 ...