Ok this video cant be legal...(mothership content)

[CJB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmbog...eature=related

This can't be legal. How can he post that, having recorded a conversation secretly, then play it back in public? That don't seem to kosher

[jocko]

personally this guy is a complete di-k. How would you like to talk to people like this half of ur day every day. Ihave nbo issues withhim recoridng it but making it now public shows to me he is indeed a di-k.. In some states this could indeed be illegal.

[jlottmc]

I think that this guy might have come here and then went looking for a fight, personally, I heard nothing from Jay that sounded untoward. This guy got a little mouthy at the end, but then again, he had already cut the phone off. As for posting it, meh that was 8:09 that I'll not see again.

[Dietrich]

I haven`t figured out what this guy`s gripe was with Kahr`s service.It`s a wonder Jay didn`t lapse into a coma listening to this bird.I think I`ll go down to the harbor and watch the planks on the dock warp.It would be more interesting than this guy`s videos.What a tool.

[jlottmc]

That dear Dietrich, was what I was thinking, but not going to say up front. I get the feeling that this guy does come around here, and well I have little to pick a fight over for the moment anyway.

[jocko]

He just wanted to make a video to show everyoe what a di-k he was. I think he succeeded IMO. I also think he was making up alot ashe went on with his verbage to. A troll is a troll is a troll is a troll. He probablyt has been a pswt now banned kahr talk person.

We are spending myself included, to way to much time on this a-hole.

[BuckeyeBlast]

I didn't spend the 8 mins to listen to what you describe as a d-bag, but did anyone watch the part 2 "Redemption" video?

[Bill K]

On a positive note Kahr gets it fixed and back in 1 week. Range test no failures!

Depending on what states are involved he may be perfectly legal...

"Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.

Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.

At least 24 states have laws outlawing certain uses of hidden cameras in private places, although many of the laws are specifically limited to attempts to record nudity. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. Journalists should be aware, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy."

Bill K.

[CJB]

Now thats clarification!

With one addition -

Currently, no federal, state, or local law prohibits being a ****.

[jlottmc]

Now as a CJ student let me ask you this: as with most customer service operations, they will throw a disclaimer that the call you make to them may be recorded for training purposes. Would that be sufficient to satisfy requirements for consent if I call and plan to do the taping?

[Bill K]

Now as a CJ student let me ask you this: as with most customer service operations, they will throw a disclaimer that the call you make to them may be recorded for training purposes. Would that be sufficient to satisfy requirements for consent if I call and plan to do the taping?

Here is a link to a site covering "Phone Recording Laws"... http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law.htm.

Bill K.

[jlottmc]

That didn't answer my question. I'll look it up later.

[Longitude Zero]

One party consent pretty much covers it. Also when your are recording a customer service agent you are recording an agent of the company and therefore the company, not th eperson.

It hinges on whether the other party has any legal expectation of privacy. No customer service agent has any expectation of privacy. Especially so if their company also records conversations for training and/or quality assurance.

BTW the guy is a tool.

[JimBianchi]

Every state is different. I'd have to know where it was was record to determine if a crime was committed.

If done across state lines, the Feds could be involved.

I think if Kahr sent a cease and desist letter to get it pulled. Youtube may pull it if they ask them to.

[CJB]

Kahr doesn't state that the calls "may be recorded"