Talk:Telephone tapping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Telephone tapping and Voice Logging is used in different industries[edit]

I disagree that the subjects of telephone tapping and voice logging should be split. These are different technologies used in different industries. Telephone tapping is a technology used in the security industry to intercept calls on public telecommunication networks. The purpose for this is to analyse these intercepted calls in order to find evidence required to prosecute suspected criminals or terrorists. These calls are intercepted without the suspect being aware of it. Voice logging is a technology that is used in the call center industry. Calls to private communication systems are recorded for the purpose of resolving legal disputes and quality control of call center agents. These calls are recorded with the caller aware of the fact the the conversation is being recorded.

Although the basic recording equipment is very similar, the software applications that control the recorders differs significantly.


Yeah, I think it should be changed back ,or make wiretap redirect here. Also, this sentence doesn't make any sense, or is hard to follow: "Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation".


The title should be changed (back?) to the more general term "wiretapping", and content of this article should include internet issues.


The first version of text of this article was taken from http://secdocs.net/manual/lp-sec/scb7.html which is licenced under the GFDL, and hence can be used in Wikipedia

Are you sure about this? That document includes invariant sections that may not be removed. Unless we include those invariant sections in the article, I believe that the article is in violation of the license. AlexanderWinston 15:58, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Anyone want to add the US Navy's tapping exploits in the Barents Sea?

I tried to make the article less US-centric. In an international encyclopedia, comments on legal matters should generally be localized to a certain country, or at least to a class of countries with similar legislation. David.Monniaux 14:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Legal Status[edit]

The Bush Administration has repeatedly asserted and acted under the doctrine of executive unitary power, that the president may take steps to ensure the protection of Americans, beyond those legally excluded by federal law. In theory, the president may order wiretapping on whomever he so chooses. Gonzales has been suggesting there are other surveillance programs in operation. Could I suggest this article be updated considering the president has acted this way since September 12, 2001, instead of implying that western democracies have strict, defined guidelines on how telephone tapping is conducted. - Shiftchange 01:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

List of State Statutes[edit]

I corrected to remove Michigan from the list of states that require two-party consent. As both a former reporter and a now-practicing attorney, I can tell you that Michigan most certainly does not require both parties to consent to the recording of a telephone call. As long as one party to the call is doing the recording, the call can be recorded without violating the law. Both parties must consent if a third party wishes to record the call, however. This has been settled law since 1982: in Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich.App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that because the Michigan legislature defined eavesdropping as listening in on (or recording) the conversations of “others,” the legislature specifically excluded recordings made by participants of those conversations from the eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c). This opinion has been repeatedly endorsed by the courts in Michigan.


Tapping[edit]

I have a problem with this section and before I change it wish to discuss it here:


"Recording the conversation - the person making/receiving the call records the conversation using a coil tap ('telephone pickup coil') attached to the ear-piece, or they fit an in-line tap with a recording output. Both of these are easily available through electrical shops. A more modern alternative is to use telephone recording devices connected to computers, such as PhoneValet Message Center. Most who record telephone conversations, such as journalists, will refer to the recording for their work."

First of all - this is NOT Tapping - that requires a 3rd party to record the conversation of parties 1 and 2. This is straight forward RECORDING. Moreover I wish to change it to reflect that it's perfectly legal to record conversations within the uk (and you don't have to inform the other person on the phone).

--Charlesknight 13:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC

Long after the above: there is now (don't know if it existed before) an article on telephone recording laws which covers the legality. At present there are 3 overlapping articles: "Telephone tapping", telephone recording laws, and lawful interception. I would suggest that we need two articles, with redirects from other wording:

  • one for techniques of monitoring and recording calls, whether by one of the parties to the call or a third party (the techniques are mostly the same, except for the need for tapped information to reach the tapper)
  • one for the legal situation, covering illegal tapping, legal or illegal recording by a party, and lawful interception.

(or we could be really confusing and call the two articles "telephone tapping" and "telephone taping") Pol098 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

George Bush and Wire Tapping[edit]

I was hoping this controversy would have it's own article. Well if not " The most recent case of U.S. wiretapping was the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy discovered in December 2005. It aroused much controversy, after several people accused President George W. Bush of violating a specific federal statute (FISA) and the United States Constitution. The president argued his authorization was consistent with other federal statutes (AUMF) and other provisions of the Constitution, was necessary to keep America safe from terrorism, and could lead to the capture of notorious terrorists responsible for 9/11."

this got resolved some right? Some courts ruled it was illegal? Mathiastck 09:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


no, it has yet to be judged unconstitutional in a federal court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.107.165 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


I hope information about Edward Snowden's revelations in the latest NSA scandal will be included on this page soon.[1][2][3] 11 July 2013

Home taping[edit]

Everything I have read about this is contradicted someplace else. In Illinois, two party consent is necessary. However, most of the people at businesses and government agencies think that permission to record only applies to them. For example I had this conversation yesterday.


Other person: This phone call is being recorded.

Me: Yes it is.

[pause]

Other: You are recording it?

Me: Yes.

[long pause-he was talking to somebody else]

Other person: You do not have my permission to record the conversation.

Me: It is a two way street.

Other person: You cannot use this recording in a court of law.


Most of the time they just hang up.

I have read some of the Illinois statutes, however, I cannot find any precedence or case history of how they have been interpreted.

Merge (and split) suggestion[edit]

It was suggested to merge Voice logging (and Telephone recording, which turned out copyvio) to merge into Telephone tapping. I concur with this idea, since the topic is basically the same.

At the same time, since the article becomes quite large, I would suggest to split some logical subarticles , one of them being Technical means for telephone tapping or something, keeping in mind for possible overlap with the "Covert listening device" article.

Another IMO quite separate topic is Mobile phone location and tapping, from section Telephone tapping#Location data and other articles, such as GSM localization and others in Category:Mobile telephony. `'mikka 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that "telephone tapping" is largely about techniques; as there's no article on "telephone recording", at the moment the tapping article is the only place I can find for technical info on phone recording, which may be perfectly legal if done by a party to the conversation. There may be overlap between telephone recording laws and lawful interception; both these articles should, in my opinion, deal with rules and regulations rather than techniques—the techniques are largely common to lawful (by government agency), illegal, and legal recording by a party. Pol098 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Last month (May 2011) User:sadads re-opened the proposal to merge this article. I would agree that it is a bit of a stub that might be better as a subsection of a more substantial article. However, telephone tapping isn't necessarily a superset of fiber tapping (since the information being tapped might or might not be a telephone conversation). Another possibility might be to merge it as subsection of Optical fiber. I have just put a link back to here from that page, where the article briefly mentions about the possibilities of tapping. Alternatively, the article could be just left as it is, and encouraged to be developed. Just my thoughts. TheAMmollusc (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Methods for voice logging[edit]

Voice recording as it is used in the call centers is not necessarily wiretapping anymore. There are many methods used to access an audio stream today which greys the usability of the term wire tapping for this purpose. These methods include

- Basic wire tapping
- Remote silent monitoring / service observe (over analog lines or T1/E1/etc)
- Packet sniffing for VoIP
- Media redirection (where the pbx actually forwards a copy of the audio to another location for you)

Kennedy wiretapping King[edit]

How could Bobby Kennedy have wiretapped Martin Luther King in 1966? He was no longer attorney general and had not been for 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.36.18 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tapping in the Netherlands[edit]

Hello, on this dutch newspaper there is an article about telephone tapping: http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article1105678.ece/1.700_gesprekken_per_dag_afgetapt

translation of first part: Rotterdam, 29 mai. In the Netherlands telephone tapping happens every day as much as it happens in the USA in a year. In the second half of last year there were 1.681 conversations tapped each day, in the USA there were only 2.208 conversations tapped last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.166.77 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It also mentions: 'The data shows that the Dutch police tapped 12.491 different phone numbers in the second half of 2007.' This information could be used to partially correct the missing citation in the Location data section of the article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Webtapping[edit]

Under what section of the PATRIOT Act is webtapping allowed? Section 212 of the Patriot Act allows service providers to voluntarily disclose subscribers' content to government agencies when there is a perceived serious risk of injury or death, but does not grant the US Government the power to compel this disclosure. Isn't a more appropriate law here the August 5, 2005 FCC ruling that CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) should be extended to cover ISPs and VoIP providers? I'm kind of too busy writing an essay at the moment to check, source and edit this myself (though if I find any suitable sources in the course of writing my essay, which is on a related topic, I'll include them), but if someone else could check this out, that would be great. --Thegooseking (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

US-focused article[edit]

This article, at present, seems to be entirely about the history and legality of wiretapping in the United States (apart from a brief mention of Greece in the history section). It should be expanded to explain how other countries have approached this issue, perhaps using some of the content in the Telephone recording laws article (or otherwise renamed to Wiretapping in the United States). Robofish (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is too US-focussed. It is my belief that all phone calls are recorded. I base this on my observation that in high profile criminal cases often contents of phone conversations comes to light which occurred well before the event. Sometimes the targets were under surveillance, yes, but sometimes you wonder how such and such person could have been under surveillance at that time, well before the event. Just observe the criminal cases, I guess. 144.136.177.146 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

US editors should beware of using "foreign" to mean "non-US". For most of the world the US is "foreign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impregnable (talkcontribs) 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In Norway[edit]

There is no article called Telephone tapping in Norway.

Here is a link that might add something to this article.

(Several leaders of police were phoned today, and ordered to appear in court immediately — accused of illegal phone tapping) "Politiledere ble beordret til retten — Flere politiledere ble i dag oppringt, med beskjed om å møte i retten umiddelbart - anklaget for ulovlig telefonavlytting."--85.166.141.237 (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Telephone tapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telephone tapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Opinion: "if not an all-out violation of civil liberties"[edit]

This opinion was deleted for having no reliable source cited. It is an interesting issue, however. And if there is an argument for "violation of civil liberties," I would like to see it set forth with references to laws, case laws, constitution, or Bible verses. Perhaps how one knows what are & are not civil liberties is also a topic worth considering. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC))

Have the wire-tap laws been extended to cover wireless taps?[edit]

Has the law expanded the wire-tap laws to cover wireless taps? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC))