<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can the other party record a phone call without my consent?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tapitsoftware.com/can-the-other-party-record-a-phone-call-without-my-consent.htm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tapitsoftware.com/can-the-other-party-record-a-phone-call-without-my-consent.htm/</link>
	<description>Call Accounting And Call Monitoring Software For Your Business Phone Center</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 00:40:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: WRG</title>
		<link>http://tapitsoftware.com/can-the-other-party-record-a-phone-call-without-my-consent.htm/comment-page-1/#comment-10083</link>
		<dc:creator>WRG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tapitsoftware.com/can-the-other-party-record-a-phone-call-without-my-consent.htm#comment-10083</guid>
		<description>The Kansas law is that only one party needs to be informed and in your case it would be the agency that recorded the call.

The state’s highest court has interpreted the eavesdropping and privacy statutes to allow one-party consent for taping of conversations and in interpreting both statutes has held that as long as one party consents to the conversation, the other party loses his right to challenge the eavesdropping in court. Kansas v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984).

P.S. You are correct about California law on the issue. All parties must be informed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Kansas law is that only one party needs to be informed and in your case it would be the agency that recorded the call.</p>
<p>The state’s highest court has interpreted the eavesdropping and privacy statutes to allow one-party consent for taping of conversations and in interpreting both statutes has held that as long as one party consents to the conversation, the other party loses his right to challenge the eavesdropping in court. Kansas v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984).</p>
<p>P.S. You are correct about California law on the issue. All parties must be informed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)

Served from: tapitsoftware.com @ 2012-05-22 01:47:01 -->
