[Bush Lady]

I have something that fits right in with the title of this thread and if there is someone that has anything that should be said, go for it.

--------------------------------

First I want to know if it is legal for someone to tap your phone. I am talking about when two people are separated and, me that should not have anything to do with this, has the phone tapped.

By being tapped I mean, when I pick up the receiver and talk into it, ( don't dial a number) someone can pick it up. Do we not have any rights when it comes to the phone. In Canada there was a law past after, a prominent Liberal politician lost her seat in the federal government.

This is why the politician lost her seat.

I knew someone that was living in a side-by-side duplex. The people on one side of the house had a wire-tap on the phone. They could hear everything that was being talked about in the neighbors part of the duplex. And they didn't even have to pick up the receiver. They just had to be in the same room as the phone.
If there isn't a law against this, how far is this going to go?

[angelize56]

Canada

Canadian federal law requires one-party consent for telephone call recording. Please refer to provincial laws for more information.

It is sometimes legal to record somebody's conversation without his consent in case of a crime. In Canada, illegally obtained evidence is never automatically excluded. Rather, if someone's rights have been violated, the evidence shall only be excluded "where it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute" (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). So each illegally obtained wiretap would be considered individually.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-reco...law-canada.htm

[Bush Lady]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Canada

Canadian federal law requires one-party consent for telephone call recording. Please refer to provincial laws for more information.

It is sometimes legal to record somebody's conversation without his consent in case of a crime. In Canada, illegally obtained evidence is never automatically excluded. Rather, if someone's rights have been violated, the evidence shall only be excluded "where it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute" (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). So each illegally obtained wiretap would be considered individually.

So an illegally obtained wiretap can become legal. So we really do not have a law at all. What kind of a country is this?
Well people we are automatically guilty and have to prove our innocents. Even if we were dragged into something.

I am so now, I just don't know what else to say. But Angel I thank you for the link.

[angelize56]

You're welcome....and best of luck on this issue!

As far as the one party consent....basically means I could tap your phone on my word only....and not even tell you about it....definitely unfair!

[alex_holker]

Originally Posted by Bush Lady

So an illegally obtained wiretap can become legal. So we really do not have a law at all. What kind of a country is this?
Well people we are automatically guilty and have to prove our innocents. Even if we were dragged into something.

I don't know where you're getting your conclusions from: it means that evidence which might make or break a case will not be thrown out - would you really want a criminal to walk away scot-free on a technicality? I have no idea whether the person who did the recording would still be charged with breaking that law.

Originally Posted by angelize56

You're welcome....and best of luck on this issue!

As far as the one party consent....basically means I could tap your phone on my word only....and not even tell you about it....definitely unfair!

No, it doesn't: one party consent would only mean that you can tap your own phone, someone else's phone is out of the question (unless it only records when you call it, but you'd have a hard time proving that in court).

I think that in Australia, you require both parties' consent, except in certain cases for law enforcement.

[angelize56]

Thanks for clearing that up Alex!

Read here:

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

[angelize56]

From that page:

The Statutory definition of eavesdropping excludes the recording of a conversation with the consent of one party. Thus, the citizen has a right to record his own conversations.

How is that fair? Then you can legally tape all conversations you have on the phone without the other person knowing...correct?

[Bush Lady]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

I think that in Australia, you require both parties' consent, except in certain cases for law enforcement.

We should have a law like that in Canada. If both parties would need consent here then I wouldn't have had my phone taped. Because like I said I was dragged into something. (someone elses divorce)

[barfly]

If there isn't a law against this, how far is this going to go?

Google "Echelon"

//wanders quietly away whistling

[shiraz71]

You can record all of your calls, that is your right. You however can not use the calls in a court of law without a judge's consent. However with that being said, I believe a Crown attorney/ District attorney can use the illegal tapes to get probable cause ( in the case of a private citizen) for an order.

Bush lady are you talking about the Liberal in Canada that lost her seat last year?

[Bush Lady]

Originally Posted by shiraz71

Bush lady are you talking about the Liberal in Canada that lost her seat last year?

Yes I am talking about the Federal Liberal part of Canada. And it wasn't last year, it was before that. I think it was when Chretian was still the leader. And the thing is that not a word of this was on the news, the media managed to cover this all up.

Don't take my word on this that it was Chretian.

The name of the party member was Floral MacDonald. Which party was she from? It was either the Liberal's or the Progressive Conservatives.

The reason that I know about this is because this happened to a family member. This family member made is his mission and made sure that the riding now about this.

It is a real shame how things are covered up. You just don't know who you can trust these days.

[shiraz71]

Bush Lady, I did a little research. She was not a lib, she was a conservative and tried to sue her own party. I am still waiting for some calls and some links I can give you.

[Bush Lady]

Originally Posted by shiraz71

Bush Lady, I did a little research. She was not a lib, she was a conservative and tried to sue her own party. I am still waiting for some calls and some links I can give you.

Why would she want to sue the party. She was approached directly with the problem about the wiretaping, and the answer given was. That she can't do anything about it.

[shiraz71]

She was part of the group that tried to sue the party before the merger of the Aliance and the PC. She was marked as a trouble maker after that, that was 03.

I have a quote from an article that I was sent after I asked, I can't guarentee it.

"It seems the ‘pink’ Tories, Sinclair Stevens, John Crosbie, Flora MacDonald and Joe Clark have unified under David Orchard, who now proposes to file suit against the merger naming the Progressive Conservative Party and Peter MacKay as plaintiffs."

[talon03]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Canada

Canadian federal law requires one-party consent for telephone call recording. Please refer to provincial laws for more information.

It is sometimes legal to record somebody's conversation without his consent in case of a crime. In Canada, illegally obtained evidence is never automatically excluded. Rather, if someone's rights have been violated, the evidence shall only be excluded "where it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute" (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). So each illegally obtained wiretap would be considered individually.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-reco...law-canada.htm

Well, I donno about phone tapping, but as for the canadian legal system, I think it's great, the number of murders in 2002 in Ottowa is the same as that as disneyland

(apolgies for SP if wrong )