Full Version: Law forbids parents to eavesdrop on kids
A recent Washington State Supreme Court decision ruled that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation. Thankfully, legislation has recently been introduced in the Legislature that would overturn this result and allow the parents to "parent" and if need be "snoop" on their kids.
Question for Debate:
Should it be illegal for parents to eavesdrop on their kids' telephone conversations or email or computer "history"?
QUOTE
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Parents would be allowed to eavesdrop on their children's phone conversations or intercept their mail under a bill that went before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
The law is being proposed in the wake of a recent state Supreme Court ruling that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation.
Under House Bill 1178, not only would the parent not be breaking the law by snooping on a child's phone calls, any information a parent gleans from the intercepted communications could be used in court. But some have expressed concern about the bill's language, which allows calls to be recorded and mail to be intercepted.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aploca...ntal%20Snooping
The law is being proposed in the wake of a recent state Supreme Court ruling that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation.
Under House Bill 1178, not only would the parent not be breaking the law by snooping on a child's phone calls, any information a parent gleans from the intercepted communications could be used in court. But some have expressed concern about the bill's language, which allows calls to be recorded and mail to be intercepted.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aploca...ntal%20Snooping
Question for Debate:
Should it be illegal for parents to eavesdrop on their kids' telephone conversations or email or computer "history"?
QUOTE
Should it be illegal for parents to eavesdrop on their kids' telephone conversations or email or computer "history"?
Of course they should! Gee whiz, snooping? Most people call that parenting. Parents have the responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of their child, how are they supposed to do that if the government is preventing them from figuring out who their child is talking to on the phone and interacting with on the internet? Oy vey! Another notch on the governments "stupid and unnecessary law" belt.CP
Should it be illegal for parents to eavesdrop on their kids' telephone conversations or email or computer "history"?
For parenting reasons... Of course!! This topic raised it's head here before... I think Jamie was ecstatic that for the first time she agreed with me...
Any ways there is a difference between snooping as a parent, and snooping as an agent of law enforcement. The Supreme Court said, or at least the intent as I remember it, that evidence gained while snooping is illegal, not that snooping itself was illegal.
So as ConservPat
I swear is there anything better than the dog and pony shows our elected officials put on. "oh my God!!! The courts said it's illegal to snoop on my child. Those stupid liberal Judges!! Let's make a law that says, 'you can spy on your kids' Hey public... who's looking out for you??" 
Anyways I'm against the law. It's another work around laws set up to protect people from invasive police. It's got nothing to do with "parental rights" and has everything to do with police finding a way to get communications without a warrant through use of parents.
Hey, maybe we can get them to take the law one step further, if it's my house, does it matter who I tap, tape, record for the police if the information comes over my phone??
For parenting reasons... Of course!! This topic raised it's head here before... I think Jamie was ecstatic that for the first time she agreed with me...
Any ways there is a difference between snooping as a parent, and snooping as an agent of law enforcement. The Supreme Court said, or at least the intent as I remember it, that evidence gained while snooping is illegal, not that snooping itself was illegal.
So as ConservPat
QUOTE
Oy vey! Another notch on the governments "stupid and unnecessary law" belt.
Though I think that may have been sarcasm I swear is there anything better than the dog and pony shows our elected officials put on. "oh my God!!! The courts said it's illegal to snoop on my child. Those stupid liberal Judges!! Let's make a law that says, 'you can spy on your kids' Hey public... who's looking out for you??"
Anyways I'm against the law. It's another work around laws set up to protect people from invasive police. It's got nothing to do with "parental rights" and has everything to do with police finding a way to get communications without a warrant through use of parents.
Hey, maybe we can get them to take the law one step further, if it's my house, does it matter who I tap, tape, record for the police if the information comes over my phone??
I guess our agreement was fleeting, droop. I actually agree with this law. Here is a copy of the full text: HB 1178 (.pdf).
In the debate droop references, Court Rules Parents Can Not Listen to Kids!, I sided with the Court's ruling because they were upholding the privacy right of a third party. The case was not about parental right to eavesdrop on their minor child.
The Washington legislation specifically covers the concerns of third parties.
As odd and as rare as it may be, this is actually the system working properly. The State made an unclear law. The Courts made a ruling that brought the unclear law to light. The State is now taking steps to clarify the law. Parents can eavesdrop away on their own minor children and third parties are specifically protected from shoddy police work. Everyone is happy.
I'm glad to see someone's finally listening to me:
I actually agree with this law. Here is a copy of the full text: HB 1178 (.pdf). In the debate droop references, Court Rules Parents Can Not Listen to Kids!, I sided with the Court's ruling because they were upholding the privacy right of a third party. The case was not about parental right to eavesdrop on their minor child.
The Washington legislation specifically covers the concerns of third parties.
QUOTE(HB 1178)
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, any communication or conversation occurring within a residence, or utilizing any communications device within the residence, in which an unemancipated minor is a participant may be intercepted or recorded by a resident parent of the minor. Any evidence obtained under this subsection shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state if the communication or conversation was intercepted or recorded at the request or direction of a law enforcement officer without proper authority of law.
As odd and as rare as it may be, this is actually the system working properly. The State made an unclear law. The Courts made a ruling that brought the unclear law to light. The State is now taking steps to clarify the law. Parents can eavesdrop away on their own minor children and third parties are specifically protected from shoddy police work. Everyone is happy.
I'm glad to see someone's finally listening to me:
QUOTE(Jaime @ Dec 11 2004, 02:08 PM)
If you don't like the Washington privacy act be mad at the legislators who wrote it, not the Courts who rule on what the legislators wrote. 
Jaime wrote:
I think you are exactly right Jaime.
I think Droop may have misunderstood and thought I was criticizing the court. I was not. I think it is as you say. The Legislature had written a law that was unclear. The court interpreted it as it was written-- with the unintended consequences. And the Legislature is now cleaning it up by making it clear that parents can indeed monitor their minor children's telephone and computer communications.
QUOTE
As odd and as rare as it may be, this is actually the system working properly. The State made an unclear law. The Courts made a ruling that brought the unclear law to light. The State is now taking steps to clarify the law. Parents can eavesdrop away on their own minor children and third parties are specifically protected from shoddy police work. Everyone is happy.
I think you are exactly right Jaime.
I think Droop may have misunderstood and thought I was criticizing the court. I was not. I think it is as you say. The Legislature had written a law that was unclear. The court interpreted it as it was written-- with the unintended consequences. And the Legislature is now cleaning it up by making it clear that parents can indeed monitor their minor children's telephone and computer communications.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Feb 11 2005, 08:18 PM)
I guess our agreement was fleeting, droop. I actually agree with this law. Here is a copy of the full text: HB 1178 (.pdf).
In the debate droop references, Court Rules Parents Can Not Listen to Kids!, I sided with the Court's ruling because they were upholding the privacy right of a third party. The case was not about parental right to eavesdrop on their minor child.
The Washington legislation specifically covers the concerns of third parties.
As odd and as rare as it may be, this is actually the system working properly. The State made an unclear law. The Courts made a ruling that brought the unclear law to light. The State is now taking steps to clarify the law. Parents can eavesdrop away on their own minor children and third parties are specifically protected from shoddy police work. Everyone is happy.
I'm glad to see someone's finally listening to me:
I actually agree with this law. Here is a copy of the full text: HB 1178 (.pdf). In the debate droop references, Court Rules Parents Can Not Listen to Kids!, I sided with the Court's ruling because they were upholding the privacy right of a third party. The case was not about parental right to eavesdrop on their minor child.
The Washington legislation specifically covers the concerns of third parties.
QUOTE(HB 1178)
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, any communication or conversation occurring within a residence, or utilizing any communications device within the residence, in which an unemancipated minor is a participant may be intercepted or recorded by a resident parent of the minor. Any evidence obtained under this subsection shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state if the communication or conversation was intercepted or recorded at the request or direction of a law enforcement officer without proper authority of law.
As odd and as rare as it may be, this is actually the system working properly. The State made an unclear law. The Courts made a ruling that brought the unclear law to light. The State is now taking steps to clarify the law. Parents can eavesdrop away on their own minor children and third parties are specifically protected from shoddy police work. Everyone is happy.
I'm glad to see someone's finally listening to me:
QUOTE(Jaime @ Dec 11 2004, 02:08 PM)
If you don't like the Washington privacy act be mad at the legislators who wrote it, not the Courts who rule on what the legislators wrote.
Hey maybe we still are in agreement, but I am confused... help me out here. In the last discussion we found that the Court ruled the evidence illegal. Yet reading the law the court would have ruled the exact same way had this new law been in place. So what did the law really change?? What's the point??
-or-
Did it change?? The law states: "Any evidence obtained under this subsection shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state if the communication or conversation was intercepted or recorded at the request or direction of a law enforcement officer without proper authority of law."
That if bothers me. Can we trust police not to say "You know we can't direct or request you come to us with a recorded conversation, but if you do it on your own and bring it to us..... heh-heh"
So can that if be interpreted to mean that if a parent comes forward on their own a third party is not protected and that this can be used as evidence.
So either a) it is a dog and pony show and the law changes nothing but a better wording, in which case I also can agree to the law. or
the law changes enough that the spying can produce evidence against people confessing their crimes to a parent's child. In which case I have to disagree with it. QUOTE
I think Droop may have misunderstood and thought I was criticizing the court.
No, not really. Your initial post seemed pretty neutral to me. Good job.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 11 2005, 05:46 PM)
A recent Washington State Supreme Court decision ruled that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation. Thankfully, legislation has recently been introduced in the Legislature that would overturn this result and allow the parents to "parent" and if need be "snoop" on their kids.
Should it be illegal for parents to eavesdrop on their kids' telephone conversations or email or computer "history"?
No it should not. However, it SHOULD be illegal for information gained about a third party through the use of eavesdropping to be used against that third party in court of law.
As Jaime pointed out, They did not rule that it was illegal for the parents to eavesdrop on their children, they ruled that information gained from that eavesdropping could not be used against a THIRD PARTY (as in not the child of the parent) in court of law.
In most states there is a One-Party Consent Law when it comes to eavesdropping like tape telephone conversations and the like. What it means is that one party in the conversation must consent. If you are talking to me, and you tape the conversation, you are obviously consenting to the taping so there is no violation of the law (though if we are in different states, and my state requires two-party consent then this become dicey, though I am unclear as to whether you would be considered to be violating the law (though I don't think you should be)).
Some states have a Two-Party-Consent Law. This means ALL parties in the conversation must consent to the taping, eavesdropping and the like.
Now, in the case in question, a friend of the daughter confessed to the daughter on the phone that he committed a crime. The mother called the police and gave them the information. They then attempted to prosecute the friend and lost.
It would not matter if you were in a Two-Party or a One-Party consent state in this case because NEITHER party in the conversation consented to the eavesdropping.
Since the information was illegally obtained, it could not be legally used to convict the friend of the crime.
An interesting issue that come to mind here is this.
If the Supreme Court of Washington had ruled That it was illegal for the mother to eavesdrop on her child (rather then rule that the fruits of that eavesdropping could not be used against a third party in court of law) then wouldn't an legislation, short of a state constitutional Amendment be useless since the court could simply throw it out?
QUOTE
If the Supreme Court of Washington had ruled That it was illegal for the mother to eavesdrop on her child (rather then rule that the fruits of that eavesdropping could not be used against a third party in court of law) then wouldn't an legislation, short of a state constitutional Amendment be useless since the court could simply throw it out?
I would bet that the wash court was just being true to the text of a poorly drafted law. With the new law the court would be forced to interpret it as written. It would be a stretch for them to find some kind of const right of children to be free from their parents snooping.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 12 2005, 06:43 AM)
I would bet that the wash court was just being true to the text of a poorly drafted law. With the new law the court would be forced to interpret it as written. It would be a stretch for them to find some kind of const right of children to be free from their parents snooping.
Your missing the point. The issue was NEVER parental rights to snoop or their childrens rights to be free of it.
The issue was using information gained in this manner, as evidence to convict a third party of a crime. Fruits of the Poisoned tree and all that.
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Feb 11 2005, 09:57 PM)
An interesting issue that come to mind here is this.
If the Supreme Court of Washington had ruled That it was illegal for the mother to eavesdrop on her child (rather then rule that the fruits of that eavesdropping could not be used against a third party in court of law) then wouldn't an legislation, short of a state constitutional Amendment be useless since the court could simply throw it out?
If the Supreme Court of Washington had ruled That it was illegal for the mother to eavesdrop on her child (rather then rule that the fruits of that eavesdropping could not be used against a third party in court of law) then wouldn't an legislation, short of a state constitutional Amendment be useless since the court could simply throw it out?
What I talking about here was a theoretical issue.
In plainer terms. If the supreme court overturns a criminal conviction based on the violation of constitutional rights, and the Legislature responds by drafting legislation that says it is not people can be convicted that way, wouldn't the Supreme Court simply strike down that legislation on the same grounds they over turned the conviction on?
If the legislature passed a state constitutional amendment that would be another story (though I am not sure what Washington State requires in the was of ratifying amendments).
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Feb 12 2005, 09:19 AM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 12 2005, 06:43 AM)
I would bet that the wash court was just being true to the text of a poorly drafted law. With the new law the court would be forced to interpret it as written. It would be a stretch for them to find some kind of const right of children to be free from their parents snooping.
Your missing the point. The issue was NEVER parental rights to snoop or their childrens rights to be free of it.
The issue was using information gained in this manner, as evidence to convict a third party of a crime. Fruits of the Poisoned tree and all that.
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Feb 11 2005, 09:57 PM)
An interesting issue that come to mind here is this.
If the Supreme Court of Washington had ruled That it was illegal for the mother to eavesdrop on her child (rather then rule that the fruits of that eavesdropping could not be used against a third party in court of law) then wouldn't an legislation, short of a state constitutional Amendment be useless since the court could simply throw it out?
If the Supreme Court of Washington had ruled That it was illegal for the mother to eavesdrop on her child (rather then rule that the fruits of that eavesdropping could not be used against a third party in court of law) then wouldn't an legislation, short of a state constitutional Amendment be useless since the court could simply throw it out?
What I talking about here was a theoretical issue.
In plainer terms. If the supreme court overturns a criminal conviction based on the violation of constitutional rights, and the Legislature responds by drafting legislation that says it is not people can be convicted that way, wouldn't the Supreme Court simply strike down that legislation on the same grounds they over turned the conviction on?
If the legislature passed a state constitutional amendment that would be another story (though I am not sure what Washington State requires in the was of ratifying amendments).
I'm not sure that the privacy act is part of Washington State's Constitution. I think it is statutory law. However, breaking statutory law in order to gather the evidence was against the law making the conviction illegal. This is the statue
QUOTE
RCW 9.73.030
Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication -- Consent required -- Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(B ) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (B ) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or © which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication -- Consent required -- Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(B ) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (B ) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or © which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
Saying that I still agree with the rest you are saying. Which is how does this affect the law of two party consent?? Even if she could legally listen in on her child how could she legally record what the other person was saying.... So the court would rule the same way
or not...
The way HB1178 reads is open for some interpretation. It starts off with "Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section..." I'm ashamed, I actually had to look up notwithstanding to be sure, but it means exactly what I thought, which is "in spite of" Well, this is where it gets screwy to me. Section 1 is where everything is deemed unlawful. So, basically, HB1178 can be interpreted as
"in spite of what we said was illegal in section (1) (two party consent), a parent of a minor can intercept and record the phone conversation. However, if it is directed or requested by the police then the evidence will be inadmissable in a civil or criminal procedure."
Like I said earlier that is a huge if due to the fact that if it isn't directed or requested by the police it can be interpreted to mean that such evidence would be lawful and admissible.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.