listening in

[vidcc]

story (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/09/parental.snooping.ap/index.html)


This story made me think. For those that don't wish to read it, it is about a mother who listened in to her daughters conversation to her boyfriend on the phone and told a court what she heard. The end result was the boyfriend being convicted of a bag snatching. He is now getting a new trial after the appeals court ruled that because of the states privacy laws the mother wasn't allowed to listen in. ( i have heard he is now sueing her)

Now i have never listened in on my childrens phone calls, but then i have never had a need to. However one thing worries me about this law.

A big campaign is being run about knowing what your kids are up to, (it's about keeping them off drugs for those that haven't seen it), I feel that if a parent suspects their child is in any kind of trouble then listening in on phone conversations is a major weapon in this.

As to childrens right of privacy, if a parent feels the child is not being responsible just don't allow that child use of the phone....simple.

[ruthie]

This is a tough one. I believe in privacy rights, but the other side exists..if you really think your kid is getting into some hairy situations, and they are totally silent, the feeling of the need to know doesn't just go away. So, perhaps a parent will resort to all sorts of things, with the best interest in the child's well-being at heart. I'm not saying this makes it right to "snoop", but I understand what might push one to do so.

[NikkiD]

I feel this is laughable.

This kid was a minor, as was this woman's daughter.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as my child is under the age of 18, lives in my house, and uses the phone I pay for, I'm entitled to listen to any conversation I want to. If my kids want privacy on the phone, they can pay for their own phone lines. Not only that, but it's my legal responsibility to know what my kids are doing at all times, until they reach the age of 18.

I'm not saying that I would listen in on phone conversations, under normal circumstances I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't go through my child's room under normal circumstances. If I suspected that they were involved in something they shouldn't be, that might change. And law or no law, I'm going to do it.

[Smith]

i agree and disagree. i mean robbery is one thing, but listening in on your kids every conversation is stupid

[lynx]

Putting the privacy issue to one side, I can't understand how the mother's evidence could be admitted in any case.

Firstly, it was hearsay.
Secondly, could she actually prove who was on the phone.
Thirdly, she had absolutely no proof that what she heard was even true.

[vidcc]

i agree and disagree. i mean robbery is one thing, but listening in on your kids every conversation is stupid
Firstly are you really 15 ?

If so perhaps you could ask yourself the same question when you are the parent :)

Nobody is advocating listening in on EVERY converstaion, however if the parent feels that something is wrong then i believe they have the right and indeed the duty to do whatever it takes..including secretly listening to phone calls. It would have to be secretly or there is no point in doing it.

As NikkiD pointed out...WE PAY THE BILL. plus being a good parent doesn't always mean being popular :(

[vidcc]

Putting the privacy issue to one side, I can't understand how the mother's evidence could be admitted in any case.

Firstly, it was hearsay.
Secondly, could she actually prove who was on the phone.
Thirdly, she had absolutely no proof that what she heard was even true.
we don't have all the story

I don't believe for one moment that he was convicted by hearsay, there had to actually be a crime comitted and reported for the police to proceed, just telling them someone said they did something wouldn't be enough.
Her testimony would have been admitted as a witness to a confession, the truthfulness of any confession has to be taken on merit. In this case the information wasn't given under duress, it was given freely in a conversation.
The only way it has been found inadmissible is because the state has privacy laws where all parties must be aware they are being listened to or recorded ( how many times have you phoned up a company and got the "this call is being recorded message" ? )

[ziggyjuarez]

HAha good thing.She cant just do that to her child.Hope she gets a 1,000 dollor fine for that.What next,putting video cameras in the house to see what your child is doing?This ladys just going too far with the whole thing.Bag snatting is a fun thing people like to do,no real harm.

[ruthie]

She shouldn't get fined at all. Video cams? People have them, and some have found out the the people they've hired to watch their children are abusing them. You'll never know what extremes you'll be willing to go, until you have children...not to mention, if they are troubled.

[3RA1N1AC]

As far as I'm concerned, as long as my child is under the age of 18, lives in my house, and uses the phone I pay for, I'm entitled to listen to any conversation I want to. If my kids want privacy on the phone, they can pay for their own phone lines. Not only that, but it's my legal responsibility to know what my kids are doing at all times, until they reach the age of 18.
well. i don't think the legal issue is so much a problem between the parent and the child, as it is a problem of the parent violating the privacy of the person at the other end of the phone convo. perhaps my thinking is a bit old-fashioned, but when i speak to someone on the phone --unless i am informed otherwise-- i expect to have one person and only one person at the other end, rather than his employer, his neighbor, his mother, or his entire family eavesdropping.

[ziggyjuarez]

She shouldn't get fined at all. Video cams? People have them, and some have found out the the people they've hired to watch their children are abusing them. You'll never know what extremes you'll be willing to go, until you have children...not to mention, if they are troubled.Let me guess..you a communist right? Safety over freedom hu?Yes cams have cought bad babysitters but im talking about 10-18 year olds.Some people have video cameras on all day.Its cool for children but for teens it becomes a little bit too much cuban:)

[ruthie]

Lemme try to say this in a more understandable way Ziggy...I'm not into video-cams, period. However, if my kid was into some really bad shit, you can bet I'd be all over their shit, trying to get to the truth, and then decide how to best help my kid...

[ziggyjuarez]

Well said then :-]

[MagicNakor]

Bag-snatching is fun? I'm sure the old lady thinks so.

If this is what kids do for fun nowadays, we're in a hell of a of trouble.

:shuriken:

[ziggyjuarez]

muahahahaha:devil:

[vidcc]

Let me guess..you a communist right? Safety over freedom hu?Yes cams have cought bad babysitters but im talking about 10-18 year olds.Some people have video cameras on all day.Its cool for children but for teens it becomes a little bit too much cuban:)
I'm guessing you know very little about cuba.

Tell me Ziggy, who is more likely to have a drug problem....0-10 year olds or your 10-18 year olds? (we all know just how responsible 10-18 year olds are)
once adult one has to accept responsibility for ones own actions, if you are of the age of majority and you decide to do something dumb on your own head be it...untill then your parents/guardians are responsible and THE LAW when it comes to minors is and always should be SAFETY OVER FREEDOM.

[ziggyjuarez]

I'm guessing you know very little about cuba.

Tell me Ziggy, who is more likely to have a drug problem....0-10 year olds or your 10-18 year olds? (we all know just how responsible 10-18 year olds are)
once adult one has to accept responsibility for ones own actions, if you are of the age of majority and you decide to do something dumb on your own head be it...untill then your parents/guardians are responsible and THE LAW when it comes to minors is and always should be SAFETY OVER FREEDOM.
Once you get in your mid teens your basicly an adult.You know what your doing and you know whats wrong.If your kids are acting bad around there they are basicly bad people.Yes they can be helped but in the end its the persons chose.I do agree with children,its safty over freedom.I wouldent have a child doing what it wants every day:lol: you know what thatll be like:devil: .Yes its ok for you to protect your kids but just dont go too far with it.Dont be an un cool parent:lol:

[lynx]

we don't have all the story

I don't believe for one moment that he was convicted by hearsay, there had to actually be a crime comitted and reported for the police to proceed, just telling them someone said they did something wouldn't be enough.
Her testimony would have been admitted as a witness to a confession, the truthfulness of any confession has to be taken on merit. In this case the information wasn't given under duress, it was given freely in a conversation.
The only way it has been found inadmissible is because the state has privacy laws where all parties must be aware they are being listened to or recorded ( how many times have you phoned up a company and got the "this call is being recorded message" ? )As you say, we don't have the whole story.

Yet almost everyone here seems to have assumed that he is guilty. Why? The law certainly hasn't assumed that because he is going to get a new trial.

If the trial had not been completed it would be more normal for the judge to simply rule that evidence inadmissible, and if a jury is involved instruct them to ignore that evidence. If the trial has been completed it would go to appeal and the appeal court would decide whether the inadmissible evidence had unfairly affected the outcome. A new trial is much more unusual and indicates that far too much importance was placed on the inadmissible evidence in the first place.

You quite rightly point out that the conversation didn't take place under duress. But you should not forget that kids make things up to impress (potential) partners, and this could be such a case. All of a sudden she isn't a witness to a confession but a voyeur listening in on a chat-up conversation. Seems to me he hasn't had a very good lawyer either.

[Comic_Peddler]

Once you get in your mid teens your basicly an adult.....Dont be an un cool parent:lol:

You are correct about them being young adults, but what you seem to forget, age doesn't factor in maturity or experience. How can you expect someone with hardly any real life experience to always make the proper decisions. And don't talk about them having real life experiences if they are still living at home under mommy and daddies wing.

About being an "uncool" parent. The parents are there to be parents, not the kids friend. After the kid is out on his/her own, and the parents are through raising them, then they can be friends, but until then, they have to be parents.

[Biggles]

Surely, if the mother was unhappy with her daughter's friends and suspected he was admitting to a crime, she could have reported this to the police without involving herself or her daughter. It would then be up to the police to check if he was the suspect they were looking for and be identified by the person that the bag was snatched from.

The telephone call being no more than a piece of information for the police to check out not the evidence itself.

[ziggyjuarez]

You are correct about them being young adults, but what you seem to forget, age doesn't factor in maturity or experience. How can you expect someone with hardly any real life experience to always make the proper decisions. And don't talk about them having real life experiences if they are still living at home under mommy and daddies wing.

About being an "uncool" parent. The parents are there to be parents, not the kids friend. After the kid is out on his/her own, and the parents are through raising them, then they can be friends, but until then, they have to be parents.It was a joke:frusty: i know a parent is not a friend:frusty:

[Smith]

Firstly are you really 15 ?

If so perhaps you could ask yourself the same question when you are the parent :)

Nobody is advocating listening in on EVERY converstaion, however if the parent feels that something is wrong then i believe they have the right and indeed the duty to do whatever it takes..including secretly listening to phone calls. It would have to be secretly or there is no point in doing it.

As NikkiD pointed out...WE PAY THE BILL. plus being a good parent doesn't always mean being popular :(

i can see where your comming from, and my mum was like that for a while, snooping in on everything, searching my room while i was at school. your concerned about your kids.

but robery is one thing.

constantly doing this is really annoying, making it a law is a little far, but giving you kids some space is a must .

[vidcc]

As you say, we don't have the whole story.

Yet almost everyone here seems to have assumed that he is guilty. Why? The law certainly hasn't assumed that because he is going to get a new trial.

who apart from you and i who had actually said anything about the case directly?. i only did in response to your post and i made no mention of guilt. All i touched on was why she would have been permitted in court as a witness. It's a state law not a federal law so if it was a different state he would not be getting a retrial on this technicality.

That said the thread is about the rights of kids privacy over the parents rights of knowledge of what their kids are up to, the story is a lead into that.

[Rat Faced]

What about adults?

I notice a few are listening in to this at the moment but not commenting... (although they did earlier)




Isnt that right ruthie? :whistling


My view is: They have privacy until such time they or someone else gives me cause to take this away. If its something minor, then i wouldnt spy on them... just something major.

[NikkiD]

i can see where your comming from, and my mum was like that for a while, snooping in on everything, searching my room while i was at school. your concerned about your kids.

but robery is one thing.

constantly doing this is really annoying, making it a law is a little far, but giving you kids some space is a must .

I completely agree - you have to give your kids space. But (and this is a big but) you also have to know what your kids are doing. If you have a good relationship with your kids, then snooping on them isn't necessary, because they'll talk to you when something is up in their lives. This isn't always the case, there are times kids feel their parents just won't understand or that their parents would freak out if they knew what was going on. To an extent this is probably true, they might not, but not for the same reasons a kid would think. Most parents freak out about things because they're concerned about their children's safety.

I'll give an example. Skip ahead a few years (hopefully) and my son comes home one night, at 3 am, completely drunk. The next morning, I lay in to him for being irresponsible. Am I doing it because he's too young to drink? No, not really. Am I doing it because I don't want him to have fun? Again, no. I'm doing it because I want him to understand that if he's going to drink like that he better have had a designated driver or called for a ride home. I want him to understand that when he drinks, his judgement is impaired, and he might do something really dumb, so my knowing where he's gone is important, in case he decides to do something like jump off a roof into a pool and breaks his leg. Stuff like that.

As long my kids are talking to me, I don't think I have a need to go rifling through their things, or eavesdropping on their phone conversations. If their behaviour changes to make me suspect that something is going that I should be concerned about, my first avenue will always be talking to my kids. If all else fails, who knows. It might be a route I would take. It's not about spying, it's about worrying.

[Mathea]

I'll give an example. Skip ahead a few years (hopefully) and my son comes home one night, at 3 am, completely drunk. The next morning, I lay in to him for being irresponsible. Am I doing it because he's too young to drink? No, not really. Am I doing it because I don't want him to have fun? Again, no. I'm doing it because I want him to understand that if he's going to drink like that he better have had a designated driver or called for a ride home. I want him to understand that when he drinks, his judgement is impaired, and he might do something really dumb, so my knowing where he's gone is important, in case he decides to do something like jump off a roof into a pool and breaks his leg. Stuff like that.

I think this is excellent. Its a fine line that isnt easily defined. I think that if a parent is going to snoop or w/e, they had really have good reasoning, bc otherwise it will lessen the trust (and sometimes respect) the child has for them.

[Rat Faced]

:01: :01: :01:

[Samurai]

I feel this is laughable.

This kid was a minor, as was this woman's daughter.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as my child is under the age of 18, lives in my house, and uses the phone I pay for, I'm entitled to listen to any conversation I want to. If my kids want privacy on the phone, they can pay for their own phone lines. Not only that, but it's my legal responsibility to know what my kids are doing at all times, until they reach the age of 18.

I'm not saying that I would listen in on phone conversations, under normal circumstances I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't go through my child's room under normal circumstances. If I suspected that they were involved in something they shouldn't be, that might change. And law or no law, I'm going to do it.

Excellent post. I totally agree.

[ruthie]

agree. Parents don't snoop because they are bored. usually, there is enough worry and concern about your child's well-being, and you know something is "up", and what's up isn't good.

[Mathea]

agree. Parents don't snoop because they are bored. usually, there is enough worry and concern about your child's well-being, and you know something is "up", and what's up isn't good.

yeah but on the other hand, some parents can be too overprotective and/or think they ought to be involved in everything.... and sometimes the pushing for information makes the kid want to keep things secret just for the sake of NOT wanting to give in to the push to share. (did that make sense?) what I mean is, sometimes parents don't think there are boundaries to what they should be privy to, and the child takes it as an invasion of privacy. (And therefore tries to safeguard even innocent things just to "stand up" for the boundaries they think are fair)

[ruthie]

Understood. :hug: