Adding audio to video survelliance system

[donovanatee]

That's what they've been doing.

No, they have not.

Can you not simply answer this question:

Under the statue, what is the definition of "consent"?

 

[Quaere]

Consent is not a relevant part of the statute.

Ozark: Please direct us to the specific charge you believe OP would be liable for. One does not get charged with violation of an entire code.

United States Code Title 18, Part 1. Chapter 119: Section 2511

 

[donovanatee]

No Quincy, there has been no libel here. First of all, “likely a pedophile” is clearly opinion, which is not actionable. Second, a defamation victim would have to come forth and prove that someone here was able to link the accusation to HIM.


Donovanatee: These people cannot simply argue the merits of the situation. They are apparently unable to decipher the plain English in the statute, you have somehow injured their egos by questioning their opinions. Now they must all gang attack and convince themselves there is something wrong with YOU. It is a sick game that is the hallmark of this site. This thread has been hijacked so I am going to start a new one that will address the meaning of the statute and only the meaning of the statute. If ANYONE in the new thread deviates from the discussion of the meaning of the statute, I will report the post. Hopefully, with a clean thread, we can engage some of the more knowledgeable members of this particular forum.

Thanks. I simply don't get the hostility here. I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing
with anybody, I'm just asking questions about the language of the law and how it
might apply to my particular circumstances. Cops are not lawyers, and some of
the lawyers I've spoken to are really not sure one way or another.

If I was the aggressor in the neighborhood battle, I'd not be wanting to video and audiotape myself committing crimes.

I'll look for your new thread tonight. Thanks again.

 

[mommyof4]

Well, I am not about to read the entire Mass. code to find the state's legal definition of consent, but I will post the GENERAL legal definition of consent.

CONSENT - An agreement to something proposed, and differs from assent. Consent supposes: 1. A physical power to act; 2. A moral power of acting; 3. A serious, determined, and free use of these powers.

Consent is either express or implied. Express, when it is given viva voce or in writing; implied, when it is manifested by signs, actions or facts, or by inaction or silence which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.

- 1. When a legacy is given with a condition annexed to the bequest, requiring the consent of executors to the marriage of the legatee and under such consent being given, a mutual attachment has been suffered to grow up, it would be rather late to state terms and conditions on which a marriage between the parties should take place unless such consent was obtained by deceit or fraud.

- 2. Such a condition does not apply to a second marriage.

- 3. If the consent has been substantially given, though not modo et forma, the legatee will be held duly entitled to the legacy.

- 4. When trustees under a marriage settlement are empowered to sell 'with the consent of the husband and wife,' a sale made by the trustees without the distinct consent of the wife cannot be a due execution of their power.

- 5. Where a power of sale requires that the sale should be with the consent of certain specified individuals, the fact of such consent having been given ought to be evinced in the manner pointed out by the creator of the power or such power will not be considered as properly executed.

- 6. Courts of equity have established the rule, that when the true owner of property stands by and knowingly suffers a stranger to sell the same as his own without objection, this will be such implied consent as to render the sale valid against the true owner. And courts of law, unless restrained by technical formalities, act upon the principles of justice, for example, when a man permitted, without objection, the sale of his goods under an execution against another person.

The consent which is implied in every agreement is excluded; 1. By error in the essentials of the contract as, if Paul buys the horse of Peter, and promises to pay one hundred dollars for it, but the horse at the time of the sale, unknown to either party, was dead. This decision is founded on the rule that he who consents through error does not consent at all; non consentiunt qui errant; 2. By duress of the party making the agreement. 3. When it is obtained by fraud; 4. When given by a person who has no understanding, as an idiot, nor by one who, though possessed of understanding, is not in law capable of making a contract.
--b--

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Consent is not a relevant part of the statute.

Ozark: Please direct us to the specific charge you believe OP would be liable for. One does not get charged with violation of an entire code.

United States Code Title 18, Part 1. Chapter 119: Section 2511

Why? Can't you read? Obviously not because the question was asked and answered in the first thread.

So here:

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
...
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).
...
(4)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

[donovanatee]

Well, I am not about to read the entire Mass. code to find the state's legal definition of consent, but I will post the GENERAL legal definition of consent.

Thanks. I'm now told that consent has nothing to do with the matter, but was
repeatedly told earlier that it has everything to do with it.

I'll look for the new post and hope that an open and respectful discussion can be conducted there. Thanks again.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

And because you probably want the definitions

(2) “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication;

(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.[1]

(8) “contents”, when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication;

(11) “aggrieved person” means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed;