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.

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.

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

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.)

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.