What do I do

[Gman]

I know here in my area (Saskatchewan, Canada)

That's not what the criminal code says.  My father was a cop in SK for a time while teaching at Depot there.  If you are one of the people involved in the conversation, you aren't obligated to tell anyone.  Only if you record other parties who aren't aware of being recorded, ie, you plant a bug or a phone or something, and aren't a part of the conversation, does it become illegal wiretapping, recording, and interceptions according to the law..  Example is recording your wife's phone calls to see if she is having an affair - that is illegal in SK and the rest of Canada.  You recording conversations between you and her about your upcoming divorce, you aren't obligated to tell her you're recording.  You may have to advise others in your line of work due to company policy or something, but legally speaking, if you say one word in that conversation, or are even just present for it, you are under no legal obligation to do so in Canada.  

This has been challenged before in Canada, but is still law.  Here is an example of one such challenge back in 1995 that failed to change to law.

In La Compagnie D’Assurance Standard Life v. Renald Rouleau, [1995] R.J.Q. 1407 at para. 19 (S.C.) the Quebec Superior Court held that an employer surreptitiously recording telephone conversations with an ex-employee was not a violation of s. 184 of the Criminal Code.

This is why I said "if you're obligated" in my original post about recording, it varies greatly state by state in the USA, in Canada it is federal law and the criminal code that covers this, even though there have been challenges brought in provincial court, but that is usually just a route to federal supreme court, and like I said, has always failed to change things.

[guncrasher]

And the law is even older than that.  You could follow the citation listed in the AG's summary if you'd like:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703.  Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:
(1)  intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
(2)  intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
(3)  intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

You may peruse the various exceptions in Section 5704.  Pennsylvania's crime code can be found in any number of places; here's one example:  http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/18.HTM

- oldman

I think the law was meat for intercepting somebody conversation that you arent a party to.  just recently somebody tried to make it a felony even if you are part of the conversaton but not sure how that went.


semp

[Oldman731]

I think the law was meat for intercepting somebody conversation that you arent a party to.  just recently somebody tried to make it a felony even if you are part of the conversaton but not sure how that went.

No.  Just....no (tm GScholtz).

As someone already mentioned, the wiretap laws vary greatly state by state.  Federal law only requires that one party to the conversation knows that it's being recorded - like, duh, the guy who's doing the recording.  Pennsylvania, and other states, have much stricter laws.  You won't get indicted here by the feds, but you WILL get indicted by the county.  I like to think that's the way it should be.

- oldman

[RotBaron]

As it is written, only the 3rd part of the statute relates to this matter. The idea that this person is 'use'ing or intends to 'use' this 'wire' communication, is not expanded upon as to what the word "use" constitutes. The judge and attorneys would argue that point about the law and the word use.

Gray.

Obviously it would have to be an egregious violation for the average person to want to put themselves in this position. However, if he's goes and sees an employment attorney that believes he has the right to "use" "wire" communication to protect himself against unlawful termination, that would be worth watching argued in court. Is there no revised statute of this statute you've provided, or is this the law in its current form?

The funny thing is that if this is indeed how it is in PA, then simply showing the person intimidating you the microphone every time they appear would keep the conversation from ever happening.

Surfin: where's the FL statute related to the matter? If you're sure, I'd like to see it.

Good points though and the OP would be wise to know the exact law(s) regarding his situation; best explained by an employment lawyer.

[GScholz]

No.  Just....no (tm GScholtz).

 

[Oldman731]

As it is written, only the 3rd part of the statute relates to this matter. The idea that this person is 'use'ing or intends to 'use' this 'wire' communication, is not expanded upon as to what the word "use" constitutes. The judge and attorneys would argue that point about the law and the word use.

I give up.

- oldman