[clug] [OT] why "Do Not Call" register?

Alex Satrapa grail at goldweb.com.au
Tue Aug 28 02:09:15 GMT 2007

On 28/08/2007, at 06:58 , Sam Couter wrote:

> That's why cops will tell you first thing that they're recording the
> conversation when they pull you over (maybe you don't get pulled over
> very often).

Nah... last time I got pulled over was before voice recorders were  
standard issue, so the cop at the time had no problem abusing me for  
being "an idiot, or stupid, or something" due to his tailgating and  
almost running up my rear end when I slowed down from 100 to 80 at  
the Tuggeranong Parkway/Glenlock Interchange transition.

I *wish* that had been recorded, and I still haven't gotten around to  
mounting the video camera like I've been meaning to for the last...  
oh... 10 years?

The superintendent decided that letting me off the speeding fine  
(which hadn't actually been issued) was enough in the way of  
leniency, since I must obviously have been doing something wrong or  
else the assaulting officer wouldn't have pulled me over.

In South Australia, in 1972 at least, it's illegal to record a  
conversation that you are party to[1], but that's 1972. At least  
Queensland and New South Wales have exemptions for where you use a  
listening device (as opposed to a telephone intercept) to record a  
conversation to which you are a party[2] (3)(b)(ii). One can  
understand that this would be required to cover people who are being  
threatened by someone - do you reasonably expect a person issuing a  
death threat to consent to the conversation being recorded? Do you  
reasonably expect a debt collector to consent to their heavy-handing  
being recorded (no they won't, because it's a breach of the credit act)?

So between the SA 1972 act and the NSW 1984 act, I don't know where  
we really stand (the ACT's law library is hardly conducive to  
research) but I'd prefer to record the conversation and be damned,  
rather than lose that one avenue of fact checking. It's not evidence,  
because it's too easy to tamper with the recording (or as Michael  
Moore has shown, to stage the interview in order to get people to  
behave abnormally but present that as normal behaviour), but at the  
very least it can be used to show your lawyer or the judge that your  
recall of a conversation is better than the cheat... I mean... the  
other guy's.

I cannot find (perhaps I don't know how to look) any legislation  
indicating that it is an offense to claim that you are recording a  
conversation if you don't actually do so. Which means I'll continue  
to use my favourite anti-telemarketer technique without fear of  

[1] http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/LISTENING%20AND% 
[2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lda1984181/s5.html


More information about the linux mailing list