Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!well.UUCP!shibumi
From: shibumi@well.UUCP (Kenton A. Hoover)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <4295@well.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Oct-87 04:26:57 EST
Article-I.D.: well.4295
Posted: Sun Oct 25 04:26:57 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Oct-87 19:43:49 EST
References: <8710231445.AA01049@hotps.ATT.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: hplabs!well!shibumi@seismo.CSS.GOV (Kenton A. Hoover)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 27
Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu


In article <8710231445.AA01049@hotps.ATT.COM> root@hotps.att.COM (Admin) writes:
>In article <8710211927.AA27985@csib.CSI.COM>, lgold@csib.UUCP (Lynn Gold) writes:
>> As long as ONE of the parties involved in the telephone conversation
>> knows that the call is being recorded, it's perfectly legal to record
>> the conversation.  In other words, if I feel like taping you, it's okay
>> because *I* know I'm taping you.
>>
>  WRONG!

OK, boys and girls, lets get this straight.

To cite the contents of phone books is silly.  Each state has rules for teh
operation of the phone system in their state ("tariff") and these matters,
whether it be wiretap, phone recording, rates, etc. will VARY WIDELY.  Being
in the same RBOC makes no difference (California and Nevada have a different
set of regs).

So, what is true in California may not be true in NY.  Unless you are citing
CFRs, it dont apply to me.


-- 
!   Kenton A. Hoover             {hoptoad,hplabs,lll-lcc,ptsfa}!well!shibumi ! 
!                                 SNAIL: 1748 Clement Street                 !
!   Prescriptive Technology              San Francisco, CA 94121             !
! "Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb!"                 !