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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.   

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.