How about this, I think their whole legal system has their heads up their asses in this case and I find it very alarming.

that sounds perfect, Jill

A mom listens in on a conversation between this kid and her 14yr old daughter on her phone in her house which she pays for.

I said the exact same thing to my wife when we heard about it.

Minors do have less rights. They can't sign a legal contract of any kind without parental consult. Minors are not the same as adults...period.

This may turn some heads, but I've often thought that kids shouldn't even have a legal right to complete privacy until they're old enough to work and pay taxes (15 or 16), or even until they reach the age of 18, when they can vote (though that wouldn't include the right to bathe and dress in private, of course they would have the right to that).

Of course, when I was a kid, I would have disagreed with that statement.

Are there laws that say that you can't force a person to stay in a single room or a single place, even if only for ten minutes? Or a law that says you can't spank a person without their consent, or take their belongings away without their consent? I hope they start applying that to parents and lock them up.

Are there laws that say that you can't force a person to stay in a single room or a single place, even if only for ten minutes? Or a law that says you can't spank a person without their consent, or take their belongings away without their consent? I hope they start applying that to parents and lock them up.

Has some one been punished lately?

It's definately a catch 22 because if a parent can't be a parent, then what's the point of bieng a parent? What's the point of children being children who learn from and look up to their parents for guidance and as examples of how they should live their lives? What's the point of the law telling you as a parent you are responsible for what your child does and holds you responsible, when the child breaks the law, then turns around and "bites you in the ass" when you do your job and parent. Telling parents that the judges only interprets the law is not the answer here, every parents know that, it's what rights do parents have when the law can't even back them up when they do the right thing. Every parent have a right to be angry at this outcome.

Telling parents that the judges only interprets the law is not the answer here,

Unfortunately, it is.  Based upon how the law is written, the judges really did not have a choice.  For a change, they did not make law, they just upheld a bad one.

Every parent have a right to be angry at this outcome.

Agreed.  And I hope the parents in Washington make those stupid legislators change the law.

Agreed. And I hope the parents in Washington make those stupid legislators change the law.

That will be an interesting test.  I can imagine them not being outraged but I will be interested to seeing if it actually motivates them to get anything changed.

This is a bunch of crap. Parents have every right to monitor their kids' conversations, phone or computer. When we got our computer at home my parents said that since I am still living in their home that when we get internet access that they want my email address and password so that they can make sure that it is being used in an appropriate manner. I see no problem with this.

If parents can't monitor their children's conversations or activities on the phone or computer, then why can colleges (such as the one I am at right now) monitor the use of their computers?

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!

This is a bunch of crap. Parents have every right to monitor their kids' conversations, phone or computer. When we got our computer at home my parents said that since I am still living in their home that when we get internet access that they want my email address and password so that they can make sure that it is being used in an appropriate manner. I see no problem with this.

If parents can't monitor their children's conversations or activities on the phone or computer, then why can colleges (such as the one I am at right now) monitor the use of their computers?

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!

Has some one been punished lately?

No, but aren't there laws against spanking others against their will, forcing another to stay in a room against their will, taking away somebody else's property, etc.? Unless they make specific exceptions for parents, the right thing is to make it illegal for parents to ground, spank, or take toys away from their children.

It's funny, people keep saying that parents should be held accountable for their child's actions.  However, they make it impossible to even find out what is going on.  What will be next?  Will it be illegal to look for drugs in your kids room then punish them when you find it?  Will it be illegal to look at cell phone bills and see where your kid called?  When will we return to minors being minors and parents being able to have true custody over their children?  It's just absurd.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!

Yep!

No, but aren't there laws against spanking others against their will, forcing another to stay in a room against their will, taking away somebody else's property, etc.? Unless they make specific exceptions for parents, the right thing is to make it illegal for parents to ground, spank, or take toys away from their children.

I see your point now.  I guess I missed the sarcasm.  And I do agree.  The courts have taken this to a new idiocy.  So while legal in Washington, it does usurp the parents rights.  And that is half way down the slippery slope to total state control.

Great point.  Sorry I missed the irony.

The case has to do with whether the information should be admissable in court. The decision nor laws deny parents the right to evesdrop on their kids. The police asked the mother to gather information and offered the mother a reward to do so after they were denied the ability to wiretap the phone.

The case has to do with whether the information should be admissable in court. The decision nor laws deny parents the right to evesdrop on their kids.

You're essentially saying they can listen but they can't do anything about what they hear.  Sorry, I still think it is absurd.  If they can nab a child molester for trying to hook up with minors on the internet, what is the difference?  I think parents need to be able to use any tools they have to prevent their kids from getting in harms way or getting themselves involved in things they shouldn't.

You're essentially saying they can listen but they can't do anything about what they hear.

Not at all. You can do plenty about it. The problem was ultimately about whether the information was admissable in court.
In any case the Washington Supreme Court did not rule on banning parental telephone eavesdropping as you have stated. They upheld both federal and state laws.
Go read the court decision, federal, and state statutes yourself. It's public information and can be found on the web. The court's decision states that the specific evidence should not have been admitted and sent the case back for a new trial. It also states in regards to the state privacy law: "It is, of course, within the province of the legislature to shift this statutory balance should it decide the residents of this state require less privacy protection."

The court simply upheld the laws as written, specifically stating that if the residents want the law otherwise it is well within jurisdiction of the LEGISLATURE to amend the laws as necessary. If you don't like the laws write to your state and/or federal legislators.

Not at all. You can do plenty about it. The problem was ultimately about whether the information was admissable in court. In any case the Washington Supreme Court did not rule on banning parental telephone eavesdropping as you have stated. They upheld both federal and state laws. Go read the court decision, federal, and state statutes yourself. It's public information and can be found on the web. The court's decision states that the specific evidence should not have been admitted and sent the case back for a new trial. It also states in regards to the state privacy law: "It is, of course, within the province of the legislature to shift this statutory balance should it decide the residents of this state require less privacy protection." The court simply upheld the laws as written, specifically stating that if the residents want the law otherwise it is well within jurisdiction of the LEGISLATURE to amend the laws as necessary. If you don't like the laws write to your state and/or federal legislators.

What can they do? They clearly can't use recorded conversations as evidence to prosecute any Internet child molesters talking to their children, unless the Internet child molester gives complete consent, which I doubt they'll do.

If parents can't monitor their children's conversations or activities on the phone or computer, then why can colleges (such as the one I am at right now) monitor the use of their computers?

This may have other laws associated with it federal and/or state statute, however in any case you probably signed something that gave consent to the College to monitor your use of their computers and network.

If parents can't monitor their children's conversations or activities on the phone or computer, then why can colleges (such as the one I am at right now) monitor the use of their computers?

Because it's against the law unless the other party consents, right? Isn't that what the judge decided? Is eavesdropping on another person's conversation legal?

What can they do? They clearly can't use recorded conversations as evidence to prosecute any Internet child molesters talking to their children, unless the Internet child molester gives complete consent, which I doubt they'll do.

The authorities certainly can use recorded conversations, however they need authorization for a wiretap. Federal law allows for a wiretap with single party consent. There may also be differences within different states and also for specific felonies in federal laws.

In any case if you don't live in Washington State you might want to look at your own state statutes because MOST of the states have statutes which gives law enforcment more leeway to gather evidence without warrants, etal.

The authorities certainly can use recorded conversations, however they need authorization for a wiretap. Federal law allows for a wiretap with single party consent. There may also be differences within different states and also for specific felonies in federal laws.

So, if a mother catches her child being propositioned by a child molester on the Internet, she can't legally do anything to get the cops on the guy until she either has a search warrant (hoping that the child molester will proposition the daughter again) or hope that the child molester consents to allowing her to use the words she saw against him?

So, if a mother catches her child being propositioned by a child molester on the Internet, she can't legally do anything to get the cops on the guy until she either has a search warrant (hoping that the child molester will proposition the daughter again) or hope that the child molester consents to allowing her to use the words she saw against him?

No she can report it to the cops. And the information on the computer may be permissable in court depending on the applicable state and federal statutes. Federal law which only requires single party consent has been interpreted to allow parents to "evesdrop". Some states have their own statutes which require all party consent. So you have to look at these states to see if parental exceptions are written into their statues(or have been previously interpreted as such). The fact is the Washington State law specifically states that the law applies to ALL individuals. So the judicial opinion in the Washington case stated:

"The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now.
and then states
"It is, of course, within the province of the legislature to shift this statutory balance should it decide the residents of this state require less privacy protection."

No activism here. All nine judges in agreement basically saying if you want parental exception in the state statute legislate it.

No activism here. All nine judges in agreement basically saying if you want parental exception in the state statute legislate it.

That may be true, but the fact remains that the judges completely ignored the fact that it is the parents, not the kid that owns the telephone. The judges assume that just because I (as a parent) allow my kids to use the phone, I give them full rights of ownership.

What the judges should have done was refuse to even bother with the arguement, since allowing it in court put them in this position and allowed idiocy to replace justice.

Too few judges are willing to tell attorneys and their clients that they cannot use their courtrooms as nurseries for infantile adults.

What the judges should have done was refuse to even bother with the arguement, since allowing it in court put them in this position and allowed idiocy to replace justice. Too few judges are willing to tell attorneys and their clients that they cannot use their courtrooms as nurseries for infantile adults.

Have an insightful on me ParaTed2k.  Boy howdy did you speak the truth there!

Independent1, some advice to make it easier for readers to follow you, select the part you want to quote, then hit the little 'Q' in the bottom left corner.  Makes it a whole lot easier to see what you are quoting and commenting on.  With that out of the way, you sound like you would make a good lawyer.  You are very right about the legislature.  That is why I said earlier that it will be interesting to see if the citizens of Washington State will get things changed.

I'm not arguing what part of the legal system dropped the ball, I am just saying it was dropped and this kind of idiocy hopefully will outrage and frustrate the people of Washington enough to do something about it.

"Independent1, some advice to make it easier for readers to follow you, select the part you want to quote, then hit the little 'Q' in the bottom left corner."

Thanks Jill...Unfortunately I don't have javascript enabled in my browser."

"I'm not arguing what part of the legal system dropped the ball, I am just saying it was dropped and this kind of idiocy hopefully will outrage and frustrate the people of Washington enough to do something about it."

Maybe it will, maybe it won't , guess it depends on how the people in the state feel about the issue....Allowing the testimony would mean not only allowing parental exception but also single party consent, clearly not the spirit of the law. Single party consent is basically no privacy because it means that anyone on the other end of a conversation would be able to tape your conversations without your consent and then use the information in court against you(or disclose it to the media). In any case it will be interesting to see what they do in Washington because if the voters want parental exception it looks like they will have to kiss some of their own rights to privacy goodbye.