There's a pretty good column on this in SecurityFocus. If you haven't seen it: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/233 It includes a discussion of the email question from the employer's perspective. And it includes some wrinkles we haven't touched on -- for example, compliance rules for broker-dealers requires the retention of audit logs. Now, there's a question of whether that's legal. >>> Warren Harrison <warren@private> 04/13/04 08:59PM >>> 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 - 11:17:19 PDT