Save a Chatlog... Go to Prison? 486
Alien54 writes "You are engaged in a chat session with some friends and colleagues, when one of them makes a witty remark or imparts a pithy bit of information. You hit CTRL-A and select the conversation, then copy it to a document that you save. Under a little-noticed decision in a New Hampshire Superior Court in late February, these actions may just land you in jail. New Hampshire is "two-party consent state" -- one of those jurisdictions that requires all parties to a conversation to consent before the conversation can be intercepted or recorded. The decision is the first of its kind to apply that standard to online chats, and the ruling is clearly supported by the text of the law. But it marks a blow to an investigative technique that has been routinely used by law enforcement, employers, ISPs and others, who often use video tape or othermeans to track criminals in chat rooms. This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications."
Relevance (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck stopping it. (Score:4, Informative)
Not in Texas! (Score:4, Informative)
As long as you're not keylogging someone else's conversation, doing what the article mentions is legal.
But one question: Why is this under the Science category and not under Privacy?
Active vs. Passive (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Informative)
Courtroom evidence (Score:1, Informative)
A simple textfile of the chat log can be far too easily fabricated, tampered with, manufactured false evidence, etc, and will get torn apart by the other side's attorney in court.
Re:Good luck stopping it. (Score:5, Informative)
C//
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
The case at hand involved software that didn't have a built-in save function, but the cop used a camcorder and another software package to record the session.
Re:A blow to an investigative technique? (Score:2, Informative)
What if you cant help it? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Trillian Pro (Score:4, Informative)
-Jesse
Re:Troublesome how? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A blow to an investigative technique? (Score:4, Informative)
Employers probably unaffected. (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, in a smaller company where this is undefined, this kind of monitoring may pose a problem under this law... but otherwise I think that police surveillance is what is primarily going to be affected, not employer policies.
Re:Trillian Pro (Score:5, Informative)
Too late. (Score:3, Informative)
It's merely deleted when it reaches the end of the buffer. But if the buffer is a ream of tractor-feed paper, it's only deleted when the paper is destroyed.
Lawyers really need to learn how computers work, and stop mooting themselves by presuming technical unrealities.
Re:Not in Texas! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
Re:A blow to an investigative technique? (Score:5, Informative)
I have mixed feelings on these laws. On one hand, I do think that privacy is important. On the other hand, I was in a situation where I was receiving interstate harassing phone calls. I taped some of the calls, but the cops wouldn't even listen to them because both the state they were originating from and the state I was in are two party consent states. So even though I had proof that this person was calling me up and threatening me (specifically saying that if I didn't send her money she would tell the authorities that I had done various illegal things that I hadn't done, nor would ever even consider doing), I couldn't have used it in court, even in my defense if she had later carried out her threat. AFAIK, she never did and eventually she got bored and stopped, but it could have been ugly for me, to say the least.
Re:Relevance (Score:4, Informative)
Will this ruling affect perverted-justice.com (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Relevance (Score:3, Informative)
The original wiretap laws were about third-party recordings. Since then, the laws have been expanded to cover all recording of conversations, but the term hasn't changed.
Re:Here is a very intresting one (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Relevance (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It doesn't affect law enforcement... (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't affect police you say? Did you read the article? Why do you think the judge claimed it specifically does affect the police? Should I belive Justice Robert Morill, or you?
No such thing as two-party consent (Score:4, Informative)