Learn by example - Know the law
September 29, 2006 11:19 AM   Subscribe

Jeanine Pirro seems to have lucked out and will suffer no consequences for conspiring to spy on her husband. Steven F. Gruel, a criminal defense lawyer said: "surreptitiously recording conversations was always risky because of the broad scope of a federal law that generally prohibits intercepting the communications of others." Is it too much to ask that this law be spelled out on products like this "mp3 player"?
posted by citizenkane (15 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: please don't link to brickhouse security any more



 
I think the intial premise of this FPP is wrong. Jeanine hasn't lucked out at all. She's still the target of a federal investigation as of this morning's newspapers. And her ill-conceived campaign for attorney general (which follwed her ill-conceived campaign for the U.S. Senate) is even more in the toilet than it was before.

As for putting a warning on an mp3 player about illegal recording, well if they do that they might as well put a warning on steak knives that it's illegal to stab somebody.
posted by bim at 11:27 AM on September 29, 2006


"Caution: Contents may function as advertised"
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:31 AM on September 29, 2006


Well, it isn't an actual mp3 player. If you follow the link - you'd learn it was a voice recorder that has the ability to play mp3's.

Also, although murder is obviously illegal. Why would one assume taping a conversation is illegal when surveillance cameras are not? It's true, you can plant a surveillance camera wherever a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy - why wouldn't it be the same for a voice recorder?

If this was spelled out, I'd wager to guess that less people would buy this type of equipment.
posted by citizenkane at 11:32 AM on September 29, 2006


It seems pointless to put a warning label on every single thing that might be misused.

The folks who are most likely to engage in illegal recording (private investigators, Jeanine, Bernie Kerick) know damn well that it's illegal to do so.

It's simply a waste of time for legislatures to pass a law for every teeny weeny little issue.
posted by bim at 11:49 AM on September 29, 2006


You really can't stand that site, can you?

Is this some weird mutant form of Pepsi Blue? I mean, this is the only thing you've ever posted or commented about at Metafilter. Pardon my possible paranoia, but it just seems weird. I guess you're just really upset about them.
posted by koeselitz at 11:54 AM on September 29, 2006


Sorry... you've commented about plenty other things. Paranoia indeed. Carry on.
posted by koeselitz at 11:55 AM on September 29, 2006


Jeanine lucked out? Are you insane?
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:55 AM on September 29, 2006


Citizencane
Two posts and they both link to brickhousesecurity.com? I'm not saying you are a self-linker, but I am saying you are an odd duck with some kind of obsession with a spy store. There are 985,000 google hits for "voice activated recorder" and you pick the same site you posted last time to highlight one? I say rosebud.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:20 PM on September 29, 2006


Jeanine hasn't lucked out at all. She's still the target of a federal investigation as of this morning's newspapers.

FEDERAL AUTHORITIES: Where did you get this [wiretapping equipment]? Who taught you how to do this?

JEANINE PIRRO: I learned it from you, dad. I learned it from watching you!

</snarkfilter>
posted by chrominance at 12:27 PM on September 29, 2006 [1 favorite]


Separated at birth.
posted by alms at 12:29 PM on September 29, 2006


Also, although murder is obviously illegal. Why would one assume taping a conversation is illegal when surveillance cameras are not?

I guess that's a good question, but it's something I've always known

If this was spelled out, I'd wager to guess that less people would buy this type of equipment.

Do you think that spying is the only reason people would want something like that? Microcassete recorders have been on the market for a long time. They're used for all sorts of things, journalist interviews, recording lectures, dictation, etc, etc, etc. The fact that they've gone digital doesn't really make much of a difference.

But anyway, who is going to vote for a District Attorney who's under investigation for breaking the law?
posted by delmoi at 12:49 PM on September 29, 2006


But anyway, who is going to vote for a District Attorney who's under investigation for breaking the law?

Sadly, some of my fellow New Yorkers will. Yikes.
posted by bim at 12:56 PM on September 29, 2006


Last time I check in New York State, you can legally record any conversation you are a party to without notification to the others involved. Its considered, basically, a record of your experience. Such recording are admissible in court as they are proof of your testimony of the conversation
posted by MrLint at 1:00 PM on September 29, 2006


It is astonishing that Pirro's political career has survived this long despite a felon husband and lengthy gaffe list.
posted by brain_drain at 1:40 PM on September 29, 2006


It is astonishing that Pirro's political career has survived this long despite a felon husband and lengthy gaffe list.

Jeanine has been a fixture around Westchester County for a long time. I suspect that given folks are more familiar with her at the local/county level, a lot of stuff can be overlooked. Maybe folks feel all warm and fuzzy about local gal, Jeanine.

But when Jeanine made the jump to try to run for statewide office, it was a whole new ballgame. Folks across the state don't know Jeanine from way back. So they ask, WTF is all this crazy stuff with Jeanine and her husband? He did time? He has illegitimate kids? He keeps getting busted for speeding? WTF? I'm voting for Andrew!
posted by bim at 2:12 PM on September 29, 2006


« Older Mr. Borat Goes to Washington   |   Drugs screens and poppyseed bagels don't mix. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments