SEEKING cesium_133. i am assuming you are canadian. i am. like to start another topic to hear your story. not alot of canadians on this site. would like to exchange info. thanks.

Tarlain:

I couldn't care less if you believe me or not about the wiretap law in Pa.  Your postings are so disjointed and convoluted  that I will not try to answer your questions.  But, I have a question for you:  What knowledge and  experience do you  have that makes you qualified to discuss the polygraph and to call me liar?

http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html

"Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. "

quickfix,
thank you for the link.  i believe this quote ends the debate.  i will have to check to find out what my state/local law allows.

this also explains why Linda Tripp was allowed to tape record Monical Lewinsky from my previous arguement (wash d.c.)

quickfix

Go ahead and beat the dead horse with those links. They are providing me with much case law research in a new area.

Thanks again, Bud.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the following link will provide solid answers to questions about surrepticious tape recording;  it is the First Amendment Handbook, and Chapter 3 covers recording:

www.rcfp.org/handbook

Tarlain wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 9:27pm:



retcopper-
please explain to me exactly which part of that was "immature."  After looking back, I fail to see how any of that LACKS maturity.  The fact you think integrity and/or faith shows immaturity concerns me.  Or was this just a form of mud slinging to cover up the fact you get upset when people find out who you are in private?

Quick fix was concerned about his good reputation damaged by a person lying about his character/actions.

You on the other hand are worried about your ACTUAL actions.  There is a huge difference here.


To be abundantly clear to you and Nonombre.  I have every reason to believe that my attitude and actions are very similar whether I am being "taped" (which is often the case during high acuity cases for the team I work with).  It is only responsible to realize you are accountable for your own actions.  I am sorry if that is your definition of immaturity.

I'll have to humbly accept your disagreement.  I do not feel I am immature.  The professionals that I engage with every day do not feel that way either to the best of my knowledge.  I do not see any reason to be concerned if someone records my conversations.  Who cares?  If I say it out loud...to another person, there is always the good chance, it will become common knowledge.  Most of us learn this facet of life around the 3rd grade.   

Under many circumstances, it would be illegal (hippa laws, 3rd party wiretapping, etc)...but I disagree with you about it being illegal to for me to tape my own conversations.  Feel free to insult me all you want, but the fact is, you are the one lying on a regular basis...and afraid of others finding out what you are saying to the people while performing your job(s).   

retcopper,
Please show me SPECIFICALLY where it says in your state of PA that an individual can not record a conversation that he/she is a participant.  You keep throwing that out there like it is fact...because you say so.  But at least show me you are not making that up since you continue to base your entire arguement on something that does not even apply where I live (or the other 3 states I have lived in).  This should be quite easy to do for a seasoned professional like yourself.

Nonombre,
For clarity:  I have absolutely no problem with other people finding out what I've said in conversation.  If I said it out loud, what difference does it make if someone records it...unless I was trying to DECEIVE someone.  Which is funny, since that is what it sounds like you 2 try to do on a regular basis.

quickfix,
most of this arguement has nothing to do with federal employees.  i certainly did not bring that up.   if you are truely concerned with people altering tapes (which is extremely detectable), all you would have to do is hold all tapes for a longer time.  Certainly the inconvenience of holding a tape shouldn't impede on people's freedom...in this case to show the world the true behavior of many of these polygraph people.

and without dragging out the tin foil hats, please excuse me if i don't trust ANY govt to protect the authenticity of polygraph tests...the one where they lie to me over and over again.  Give me a break.

same here;  amen

Quickfix:

I definitely would expect the examinee to request permission from me to tape record the test.  If I found out he surreptitiously recorede it  I probably wouldn't arrest him for violating the  wiretap statute but I would let him know in no uncertain terms that he violated the law.

Tarlain:

Your comments are immature. Nonombre summed it up nicely.

Retcopper/Tarlain:  let me clarify that I wouldn't have any objections to my exam being recorded by an examinee with prior knowledge;  I would object if it were done covertly.  As a federal employee, I am bound by DoD and federal regulations to advise examinees that all portions of the exam are subject to monitoring and recording, and the advisement is prominently posted in writing on the monitor room door;  furthermore, to protect the examinee's privacy, only authorized individuals, such as other examiners, attorneys, and case agents, are allowed to monitor exams, and only if another examiner is present in the monitor room.  If an examinee covertly records an exam, there is no telling what editing might be done afterward to make it appear something was/wasn't said.  One could make the same argument against the examiner, but under regulation, we are bound to protect the tapes from alteration and release to unauthorized third-parties.  If an examinee wanted to tape our session, I wouldn't object, but I would certainly ensure that our copy is held on to far longer than the typical 90 days.

Tarlain wrote on Apr 21^st, 2006 at 9:27pm:


Tarlain,

Put aside the whole polygraph/investigations situation for a moment .  Do you mean to tell me that you would not be the least bit bothered if you found out that somebody (you didn't even know) secretly taped a conversation between you and that person?

Boy, you guys acuse us polygraphers of being sneaky and dishonest.  At least we TELL you when you are going to be taped.

retcopper,
I find your last statement very odd.  Why would it bother you if you were "taped" without your knowledge?  If I understand your background correct, you are a public servant.  Integrity should be your foundation.  It does not seem to fit...that a person of high integrity would do anything different if others could view their behavior.  I'm not sure if that makes sense.  But in my occupation, it is certainly assumed that all my actions would be identical regardless of whether there is a hard copy of my behavior.  The fact you actually care if other people know what you do when you feel you are alone with someone is unsettling to me.   

Of course, I carry myself each day as if each of my actions is being judged by a higher authority.  Maybe the judgement of God makes man's judgement pale in my mind.  Just my thoughts...

Fortunately the legislature is going to review the current wiretapping statute, the school bus issue and hopefully amend it to allow the audio portion.  In the mean time many schools have disconnected the cameras and/ or have eliminated  just the audio portion. Like Twoblock said, it is a sad commentary when some kids are a threat on the schoolbus. 

Quickfix: Personally I dont have a problem with anyone taping one of my polygraph exams as long as it doesn't interfere with the process. What I do object to is speaking to someone in any kind of other situation where they tape your conversation without your knowledge. This happened a couple of times when I was a police officer. The complaintant would tape record us when we responded  to her complaints about various things.  The tape vindicated us when she tried to use it against us but the idea that someone tape records my conversation without my permission is unsettling.   

Thank for all the input.  As far as the buses, I'd sign a parental consent to allow it.  And if my son/daughter was not sitting with hands folded, quietly waiting for his/her bus stop, I would instantly be enforcing significant discipline.

Growing up as a military brat, I had not thought about the fact that we did agree to all the mentioned above when living on base housing, etc.  If the polygraph is done in a govt building, I can see how this would pose a problem I had not considered.  I absolutely understand why misc electronic and recording device would be prohibited.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure where tests are normally done.  I guess I'll find out in the future.

On a side comment, it takes FOREVER to work your way through the hiring process of these LE applications!  It's never taken me more than a couple weeks to apply/accept previous job offers.  It's looking like I could be waiting months and months just to get to the polygraph part of the process (sheesh).

Anyhow, thanks again.

retcopper wrote on Apr 20^th, 2006 at 9:30pm:


Federal and state/local law are indeed quite different, particularly when DoD is involved;  within highly-protected facilities called SCIFs (Special Compartmented Information Facilities), it is unauthorized to bring in electronic equipment and media of any kind without the express consent of the facility commander.  This includes cell phones, laptops, blackberries, and recording devices.  All are subject to immediate confiscation if discovered.  Incidentally, when one sets foot in a federal government facility or military installation, implied consent to search is given for your person, vehicle, or anything you are carrying.  As far as recording exams, most DoD programs record their exams either by audio or video, or both.  Traditional recordings (cassette tapes, vcr tapes, etc) are generally kept for about 90 days, then erased.  They are kept in the event a complaint is received by an examinee against an examiner for allegations of inappropriate behavior, verbal abuse, etc.  The recording is then reviewed by supervisory personnel to substantiate or refute the allegation(s).  The newer polygraph equipment have built-in digital recorders and may be kept longer.  During a DoD exam, the examiner is required under DoD regulations to advise examinees of the presence of recording devices, observation (one-way) mirrors, and any other external equipment.  In my 20+ years in the profession, recording of a poly has never been an issue of contention by an examinee.  Personally, I couldn't care less if someone had a recording device during their exam.  We both know the exam is being recorded by me, so what's the difference.  Only an abusive or unethical examiner would be concerned.  I have more concern for an examinee bringing in a concealed weapon or illegal drugs into my room, which has in fact happened.

retcopper

It's sad to hear that your state is removing the vidio because of the audio part. Both need to be in place on school buses. That's a bad, bad code. In my state bus drivers are cursed and assaulted by students often. It's just another step in taking away control of kids from the school. Physical punishment has long been taken away from parents and schools. I believe that's why our jails and prisons are filling up. Kids today grow up not respecting parents, schools or anything else. I guess, however, that's why the polygrapher's chair is always busy. I'll guess again that you had rather not be so busy by law breakers who grew up like this.

How about working with people like me to get rid of politicians who believe they the only ones who should be in control.

Tarlain:

I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Fed Laws are different and each state probably  has different applicable laws.  Like I said, go by what your attorney tells you.

Twoblock:

You are correct. A recording device is not a "wire tap" device BUT it is prohibited under the "wiretap" statute of Pa.

Tarlain:

The wiretap section in the Crimes Code of PA prohibits the taping of another without their consent.  Just last week the PA State Police removed vido cameras from school buseds because it was recording voice as well as video which is  violation of the Crimes Code.  Of course, you should listen to you lawyer's advice and do what he says.

retcopper,

in my state, it's against the law to walk on the lines of a sidewalk.  it's also unlawful to fly kites during the crescent moon.


but seriously, where do you pull this information from and/or what state are you referring to?  everytime you try to convince me it's illegal, my internal polygraph test goes bonkers  . 

it strikes me as the same spiel with nothing to back it up.  please do not take offense to my doubt, but at this point, i refuse to accept anything as truth without finding it in legal writing.

edit:  thanks for the input from everyone.


CGS 53a-187  = "without the consent of either the sender or receiver"

CGS 53a-188 = "Knowing that he does not have the consent of the sender or receiver"
 

those quotes are pulled directly from the penal code.  if the code stated "sender AND receiver"...then i would be out of luck.  but it uses the word OR.  and unless someone wants to revisit my Critical Thinking201 class with me, the word OR there means either party can grant permisson.

Tarlain:

Ill repeat it  again,  the law in the state where I live prohibits the recording of a conversation of anohter without his or  her consent.

You keep asking "am I allowed to record my own conversationn?"  Of course you are. Just  turn the tape recorder on when you start talking and have a ball listening to yourselff speak.

In Connecticut it is not illegal to record a conversation between you and another person, regardless of whether you tell the other they are being recorded.

The applicable statutes are:
CGS 53a-187
CGS 53a-188
CGS 53a-188

I can't seem to insert a hyperlink on the board this morning, so I'll have to post the whole URL: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-187.htm.  Just click on that one and scroll down the page to see the other two statutes.

As I am not well versed in the laws with regard to "taping" do not rely upon the information I provide as it is my understanding.

I see no reason, legally, why you could not audio record a polygraph exam.  If one is seriously seeking employment, I would advise against it.  If one if seeking information only, why not.

That being said, I believe the actual offering of such a recording would possibly violate "taping" law.  Again, I have no reference and this is sheerly conjecture.

As far as "COPS" is concerned, digitized or other methods to obscure identity must be in place if consent is not received prior to public broadcast as "COPS" is non-news programming for public consumption.  There is a difference between your local 6 o'clock news and COPS.  The news is publicized information for the better good of the community versus COPS which is entertainment programming.  What happens in San Antonio does not have a public impact on the folks in Boston.  I believe a clandestine taping to be the same as COPS.

So you would agree then that I could record my own conversations and do as I wish with them as long as they are not used for blackmail, extortion, etc.?

I'm certainly going to consult reliable counsel before such an event, but I still have not seen anything that implies I can not carry through with my recording.

The main point is that I want to post them to give people an idea of how the process works.  Ignorance causes the greatest amount of fear if you ask me.

edit:  as for the "Cops" show, they are still recording without permission.  That part has to be legal.  The only reason they are forced to get consent is because they are profitting off of the "actors" involved  .  If it is freely distributed, I do not think I have any reason to ask for consent.

From time to time on the tv program "COPS" you will notice a blurred image.  The folks on "COPS" have to obtain a signed release from every suspect shown.

The amazing thing is, the majority sign the release.  "Hey look mom, I'm getting arrested for stealing a car and loading it with drugs."  The chance to be seen on tv appears to be hard to pass up.

I have always understood the laws of recording to be as follows:  audio: consent of one party; video: consent of one party; audio & video: consent of both parties excluding security cams.