Vegas Polygraph

[retcopper]

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.

[quickfix]

same here;  amen

[Tarlain]

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.

[Tarlain]

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...

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.

[quickfix]

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

[Twoblock]

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.

[Tarlain]

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.)

[retcopper]

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?  

[ILGA_RITA]

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.