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