*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE***** This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. ********************************** Actually, if you look at the statute, 165.540(a) refers to telecommunication(s)or radio communication and 165.540(c) refers to a conversation. Per 165.535(1) "Conversation" means the transmission between two or more persons of an oral communication which is not a telecomunication or a radio communication." Per 165.535(4) "telecommunication means the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable or other similar connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, equipment and services (including, among other things, the receipt, forwarding and delivering of communications) incidental to such transmission." Per 165.535(3) "Radio communication means the transmission by radio or other wirless methods of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, equipment and services (includ9ng, among other things, the receipt, forwarding and delivering of communications) incidental to such transmission. Conversations appear to be face to face meetings, or at least communications not using electronic means. A telephone conversation would appear to fit into either telecommunication or radio communication, or both. (all this is under Oregon Law, and I have no idea of the legal ramifications if a person in Oregon recorded a telephone conversation with one from Washington without letting them know first. It does appear that if both persons are in Oregon, you can record to your heart's content so long as a participant to the telecommunication/radio communication agrees.) Richard May, Investigative Auditor Oregon Department of Justice, Medicaid Fraud Unit 1515 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 410, Portland, OR 97201 Tel: (503) 229-5725 x216 Fax: (503) 229-5459 -----Original Message----- From: Warren Harrison [mailto:warren@private] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:59 PM To: Robert D. Young Cc: CRIME List; warren@private Subject: Re: CRIME Save a Chatlog... Go to Prison? Robert D. Young wrote: >Verrrry interesting. That contradicts what I've been told by several >Oregon lawyers (and good ones, too). I'll have to look more into this... > > 165.540 Subsection (a) says you need one party's permission, subsection (c) says you need both parties' *knowledge*. So you can say "Hi, tape's rolling ..." and you don't even need to ask their permission. Two party states (I believe) require both party's *permission* - not just knowledge. Warren >- Robert > >-----Original Message----- >From: Warren Harrison [mailto:warren@private] >Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:57 PM >To: Robert D. Young >Cc: CRIME List >Subject: Re: CRIME Save a Chatlog... Go to Prison? > >Robert D. Young wrote: > > > >>It's my understanding from what the lawyers have told me that the >>one-party state rules are applicable only when both parties are in the >>same state. Of course, it may also work if someone in Missouri calls >>someone in Oregon (also a one-party state), but I'll wait for someone >>with a legal background to advise me before I'll try it. In the >>meantime, I'll continue to inform anyone I suspect may be out-of-state >>before I start any substantive recording (i.e., I'll record their >>denial or acceptance, regardless). >> >>- Robert >> >> >> >> > >Just so no one gets into trouble, in Oregon you only need one person's >permission, but *both* parties have to be aware of the recording. ORS >165.540(c) says: > > [no person shall ... ] obtain the whole or any part of a conversation >by means of > any device [...] if all parties in the conversation are not >specifically informed > that their conversation is being obtained. > >so you should also be informing people in Oregon before you start *any* >recording. I am not sure if this was implied in your e-mail or not, but >just so others don't think they can record their conversations with >someone else in Oregon without informing them. > >There are exceptions for educational classes, public meetings, etc. > >Violation is an A class misdemeanor. > >Warren > > >-- >====================================================================== >Warren Harrison, EIC/IEEE Software Magazine warren@private >Department of Computer Science http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~warren >Portland State University PHONE: 503-725-3108 >Portland, OR 97207-0751 FAX: 503-725-3211 > > > > > > > -- ====================================================================== Warren Harrison, EIC/IEEE Software Magazine warren@private Department of Computer Science http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~warren Portland State University PHONE: 503-725-3108 Portland, OR 97207-0751 FAX: 503-725-3211
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Apr 14 2004 - 11:16:52 PDT