Begin forwarded message: From: "James S. Tyre" <jstyre@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: July 14, 2006 1:03:59 PM EDT To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx>Subject: Re: [IP] more on California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians without their consent - regardless of where you are.
Respectfully, I disagree with Lauren's first sentence.In 1984, in Calder v. Jones, the U. S. Supreme Court set forth the so- called "effects" test of personal jurisdiction, to deal with the situation when someone in another state who has no other significant contacts with the forum state directs and causes a harmful effect in the forum state. Without going into all the details of the case, the Court said that jurisdiction in the forum state (here, California) was appropriate.
_Calder_ was a libel case, but since then, courts have expanded the doctrine to other personal wrongs. The wrong here is one that, by definition, occurs in California - the law does not apply to a Californian who is in say, Minnesota, at the time.
Time and subsequent court decisions will tell, but it's not hard to imagine that California courts will use the _Calder_ effects test to find that jurisdiction in California is appropriate over an out of state caller that does not have a physical presence in California.
-Jim At 09:55 AM 7/14/2006 -0400, David Farber wrote:
might work against corp who do business in Cal Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: July 14, 2006 9:52:23 AM EDT To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: lauren@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [IP] California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians without their consent - regardless of where you are. Dave, My "I'm not a lawyer" analysis of this ruling suggests that its enforceability may be problematic against entities who do not have a physical nexus here in California. It's this state by state variation in 1-party vs. multiple-party laws on recording that has made the interstate situation so complicated, and it's not clear that anything short of changes at the federal level will be able to harmonize these laws. Obviously, I'd prefer to see all states forced to abide by the multiple-party (all-party) standard, since the current situation is utterly loophole-ridden. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxx Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, IOIC - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com - - -Begin forwarded message: From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: July 13, 2006 3:35:59 PM EDT To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: California Supreme court prohibits recording Californians without their consent - regardless of where you are. Greetings Dave, Many people, especially reporters, are familiar with state laws prohibiting phone conversations from being recorded without the consent of one or both parties to the call. Some states, and federallaw, require only 1 party to consent, other states require both or all parties to consent. California is one such 'all-party' consent state.(Think Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky talking about her boss, or the floridian couple recording Newt Gingrich coordinating hisethics probe with John Boehner, as past examples of this distinction.)Well today, the California Supreme Court found that Georgia-based employees of the Solomon Smith Barney brokerage who were taping California customers with out notice or consent violated California laws, even if they might have been complying with Georgia's '1 party' consernt laws.While the court refused to fine the brokers, finding their reliance on Georgia law reasonable, it did enjoin them from taping Californians inthe future. Case is here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S124739.PDF This decision will likely have a large impact on investigative reporting, and has definite impacts on other areas of privacy and consumer protection law as well. -Ethan
-------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre jstyre@xxxxxxxxxx Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/