NationStates Jolt Archive

http://kevxml2adsl.verizon.net/_1_26KZTO103CTEDGN__vzn.dsl/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D86SG13O0&qcat=usnews&ran=24255&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1

OK, so Washington state law is upheld by this ruling. It's consistent with the law. That's not to say the law is worth the paper it was printed on. The bottom line is that the kid was living in her parents' home and therefore under her parents' jurisdiction. Therefore, the right to privacy is null and void. The mother in this case is absolutely right; kids have far too many right compared to parents.

I am not some reactionary wacko who wants to turn back time to when kids were considered property, women couldn't vote, and divorce was illegal. I support gay rights, I oppose the war in Iraq as well as a military draft, I oppose the death penalty, and I consider abortion necessary as it is horribly impractical to ban it. However, I don't believe in children's rights to the extent they are taken now. Kids have a right not to be assaulted, murdered, abused, etc. by their parents. A parent listening to her daughter's phone conversation is not abuse. She had every right to do it. I fully intend to do the same to my kids when I become a parent...well, if I become a parent. I will invade their privacy, search their rooms, monitor every little aspect of their lives, etc...OK, maybe not that extreme, but if my kid is involved in criminal behavior, then rest assured I will do what I can to bring them to justice.

Actually if she doesn't pay the house phone bill she has no right to privacy on that phone if the person who pays the phone bill doesn't want her to.

Actually if she doesn't pay the house phone bill she has no right to privacy on that phone if the person who pays the phone bill doesn't want her to.

That was part of my thought process as well, but the state of Washington is going and sticking their noses where they don't belong. Government needs to be more responsible and pick its battles better.

I hate eavesdroopers.

Usually, going to extreme lengths to "protect" your child by infringing upon their ability to decide, will usually do more harm than good. Children have a way of following in their parents footstep. That, or just go totally overboard.

If you start monitoring your kid and telling them what they can/cannot do, then they can either 1) hate you and rebel or 2) follow your every whim. Either way is bad.

If you done your job correctly as a parent, you won't need to monitor them. Sometimes, they may get into trouble, but that's expected in life. They learn from their mistakes.

Remember, your kids will someday grow up and move out. You can't protect them forever. They will have to start fending for themself. You can either let them experience it little by little as they grow up, or all at once when they move out.

http://kevxml2adsl.verizon.net/_1_26KZTO103CTEDGN__vzn.dsl/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D86SG13O0&qcat=usnews&ran=24255&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1

but if my kid is involved in criminal behavior, then rest assured I will do what I can to bring them to justice.


I dont know that you'll have quite that attitude once you have kids.

Well, for their sakes I hope not.

Ahhh, those are the rules though. Evidence gathered through illegal eavesdropping is inadmissable in court, and this technically qualifies. It's pretty pathetic, but that's the law as it stands now.

I dont know that you'll have quite that attitude once you have kids.

Well, for their sakes I hope not.

Wow... personally if I had a son/daughter and they had involved themselves in criminal activity, it'd be wrong NOT to...

Anyways though... I agree with the original poster. The daughter is living under her mother's house, and if her mother wants to listen on her phone conversations, she can do so. Not saying I approve, just saying she should have the right.

Look after your kids, but don't encroach upon their freedom. Listening on their conversation, digging through their stuff, constantly badgering them with questions . . . what do you think is going to happen? Do you think they'll automatically stop and turn into good little kids?

You will regret monitoring them. Your kids will hate you forever, maybe in secret or maybe they'll just tell you to your face. Some of them will say that they don't really care. But the first thing they will want to do when they reach 18 is move out of your house. Your house your rules? Fine, but you're never going to see them again.

I'm currently in college and I have met other students like that. They hate going home, unless they have to. So I'm going to say it again, it will be the biggest fucking mistake of your life. An empty house can get very lonely.

Look after your kids, but don't jump into their private space. You can punish them if they did something bad. But don't punish them even when they're not doing anything.

http://kevxml2adsl.verizon.net/_1_26KZTO103CTEDGN__vzn.dsl/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D86SG13O0&qcat=usnews&ran=24255&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1

OK, so Washington state law is upheld by this ruling. It's consistent with the law. That's not to say the law is worth the paper it was printed on. The bottom line is that the kid was living in her parents' home and therefore under her parents' jurisdiction. Therefore, the right to privacy is null and void. The mother in this case is absolutely right; kids have far too many right compared to parents.

I am not some reactionary wacko who wants to turn back time to when kids were considered property, women couldn't vote, and divorce was illegal. I support gay rights, I oppose the war in Iraq as well as a military draft, I oppose the death penalty, and I consider abortion necessary as it is horribly impractical to ban it. However, I don't believe in children's rights to the extent they are taken now. Kids have a right not to be assaulted, murdered, abused, etc. by their parents. A parent listening to her daughter's phone conversation is not abuse. She had every right to do it. I fully intend to do the same to my kids when I become a parent...well, if I become a parent. I will invade their privacy, search their rooms, monitor every little aspect of their lives, etc...OK, maybe not that extreme, but if my kid is involved in criminal behavior, then rest assured I will do what I can to bring them to justice.
Wow how often do lefties and righties come together on an issue? The courts are way out of line here.... They would hang the parents if they hid the facts to protect the kids.... ( I use the term hang only as a metaphore)

I have a soon to be 16 year old as well as a 3 year old and as far as I'm concerned their right to be protected far outweighs any right to privacy. I am strict on what times she comes home and I always know what she is doing, where and with whom. Sometimes she complains but she also admits that she knows that my actions are based 100% in concern for her well being and safety. As she is getting older, I am simultaneously giving her more rights as well as more responsibility. She frequently tells me that she considers me to be a much more involved, concerned and present parent than any of her friends have and several of them have made jokes about moving in with us, so I don't think I am considered the evil demon from hell for my (admittedly somewhat inquisitive, occasionally intrusive) parenting style. As well as being tough on these sorts of things, I am very open about drugs, sex, relationships, whatever she wants to talk about and I am honest with her about things. I don't feed her the standard bullshit that many parents feed their kids and she appreciates that.

I am 100% upfront with her friends as well and get along with them quite well. They know as well as she does that if they put her in a situation that I don't approve of and I find out about it (and I have in the past) then she won't be allowed to go with them next time.

Personally, I don't give a stuff what the courts say about this sort of thing (and the courts here haven't tried this crap yet) I will do whatever I consider necessary to give my children the best life I can. If I violate privacy in the name of good parenting, so be it.

I have a soon to be 16 year old as well as a 3 year old and as far as I'm concerned their right to be protected far outweighs any right to privacy. I am strict on what times she comes home and I always know what she is doing, where and with whom. Sometimes she complains but she also admits that she knows that my actions are based 100% in concern for her well being and safety. As she is getting older, I am simultaneously giving her more rights as well as more responsibility. She frequently tells me that she considers me to be a much more involved, concerned and present parent than any of her friends have and several of them have made jokes about moving in with us, so I don't think I am considered the evil demon from hell for my (admittedly somewhat inquisitive, occasionally intrusive) parenting style. As well as being tough on these sorts of things, I am very open about drugs, sex, relationships, whatever she wants to talk about and I am honest with her about things. I don't feed her the standard bullshit that many parents feed their kids and she appreciates that.

I am 100% upfront with her friends as well and get along with them quite well. They know as well as she does that if they put her in a situation that I don't approve of and I find out about it (and I have in the past) then she won't be allowed to go with them next time.

Personally, I don't give a stuff what the courts say about this sort of thing (and the courts here haven't tried this crap yet) I will do whatever I consider necessary to give my children the best life I can. If I violate privacy in the name of good parenting, so be it.

It looks like you're a good parent. Being intrusive is ok if you're upfront about it. As long as you're not secretly listening to her conversations, and digging through all her stuff when she's not home. Actually, _some_ digging through stuff is ok, like the old "oh, I'm just cleaning your room." My mom pulls that stunt sometimes.

I think the whole issue could be resolved if the parent put a sign up by the phone saying "Phone conversations may be monitored."

Probably most of the posts here are crap. I don't know I didn;t read them.

In wiretap cases the standard is usually an expectation of privacy. It's not met here, by any stretch of the imagination. The court was wrong.

Probably most of the posts here are crap. I don't know I didn;t read them.

In wiretap cases the standard is usually an expectation of privacy. It's not met here, by any stretch of the imagination. The court was wrong.

Way to be wrong, and apparently not read the article.

Federal wiretap law has been interpreted to allow parents to record their child's conversations. But Washington privacy law is stricter. Washington is one of 11 states that requires consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.

Way to be wrong, and apparently not read the article.


No I read the article, and as I said, the court was wrong.

Way to not read my post.

No I read the article, and as I said, the court was wrong.

Way to not read my post.

How was the court wrong?

How was the court wrong?

Because they ruled for her right to privacy on the phone.

Because they ruled for her right to privacy on the phone.

Because that's the law in Washington state.

Because that's the law in Washington state.


So privacy is a state issue then?

So privacy is a state issue then?


Federal wiretap law has been interpreted to allow parents to record their child's conversations. But Washington privacy law is stricter. Washington is one of 11 states that requires consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.

It would appear so, now wouldn't it?

It would appear so, now wouldn't it?


Good, then there will be no more whining about birth control laws I hope.

The court did NOT rule on whether a mother could eavesdrop on her own child, but whether a mother could testify against someone who called her child based on eavesdropping on the conversation. The child may or may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the other caller surely did.

No I read the article, and as I said, the court was wrong.

Way to not read my post.

The Court was absolutely correct. It upheld the Washington statute as it was written, not as it WISHES it were written. Blame the Washington legislature, not the court.

I think it's total bullshit that this kind of thing takes up court and media time in this country.

The Court was absolutely correct. It upheld the Washington statute as it was written, not as it WISHES it were written. Blame the Washington legislature, not the court.

And I suppose you are a lawyer.

I think it's total bullshit that this kind of thing takes up court and media time in this country.

Yeah, because kids are stupid and don't matter. Why do we care about them so much when adults are much more important.