- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/22/14 at 9:50 am to LSUGrrrl
quote:
I thought recording law varied state to state. Does California consider a restaurant a public place, thus there is no expectation of privacy? Does California require both parties to be aware of phone call recordings? I believe it does. If so, he broke the law if he didn't tell the other person on the call that, it was being recorded. Also, the public place exclusion may not pply if he were a party to the conversation, only a bystander.
they do. I had a boss who was trying to intimidate me (you wouldn't believe the shite he said), and he was located in california. I was going to try to record the conversation, even though I am not in california, since he is I would have to abide by california rules.
Not sure why the FBI is involved though, since that is a state law.
Posted on 5/22/14 at 9:54 am to GumboPot
quote:
LINK
I don't have 20 min to watch that and it looks like just the actual footage/audio from the O'keefe thing.
My question is, people are saying that this group are hypocrites for trying to have o'keefe investigated... Are they hypocrites because they secretly recorded their opponents too?
Posted on 5/22/14 at 10:09 am to Lsut81
Not against the law.
Public place with no expectation of privacy + the recordings involved multiple people at the meeting which also diminishes the expectation of privacy.
The two party consent law is intended for private conversation with only two parties present.
Public place with no expectation of privacy + the recordings involved multiple people at the meeting which also diminishes the expectation of privacy.
The two party consent law is intended for private conversation with only two parties present.
Posted on 5/22/14 at 10:15 am to Lsut81
quote:
Are they hypocrites because they secretly recorded their opponents too?
These "environmentalist" are hypocrites for taking money from an oil sheik (an actor named Muhammad) to produce the anti-fracking movie "Fracked" because Muhammad is concerned about America becoming energy independent though fracking. The recording take place at a luncheon at a Hollywood country club and over the phone.
It's a proposed environmentalists' propaganda filmed against fracking funded by ME oil sheiks.
You really need to watch the video to get a clear understanding of the blatant hypocrisy.
Posted on 5/22/14 at 11:47 am to GumboPot
If this were illegal, 60 minutes would have been a completely different show, no? And don't local news crews do the same thing from time to time?
Posted on 5/22/14 at 1:09 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Not sure why the FBI is involved though, since that is a state law.
Exactly.
Posted on 5/22/14 at 1:11 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:I am shocked that Holder wants them to be involved. It was his statement about not wanting to infringe on the VA's IG investigation, possibly fricking up conviction. Naw this wouldn't be another political tactic would it?
Not sure why the FBI is involved though, since that is a state law.
Exactly
Posted on 5/22/14 at 1:13 pm to Jbird
quote:
California Wiretapping Law
California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.
They were in a restaurant. There may be some other thing out there they can try to get him on, but as for recording.......they're pissing up a rope.
Posted on 5/22/14 at 1:18 pm to ShortyRob
Doesn't this guy have a history of altering his videos out of context?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News