Where I Stand -- Mike O'Callaghan: Taping phone calls without mutual consent is illegal

MIKE O'CALLAGHAN is executive editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

ONE OF THE MOST VALUED elements of our American society has been the protection of individual privacy. It has been a continual struggle to protect privacy at both the national and local levels of government. Despite these gallant efforts more and more of our privacy has been snipped away by government agencies creating problems deemed only solvable by us giving up a bit more of our privacy.

Despite what some people may want you to believe, Nevadans have over the years been a bulwark against many threatened privacy invasions. A good example is the illegality of recording a telephone conversation between two people without the consent of both parties. The Las Vegas Sun newspaper and its late publisher Hank Greenspun and every other writer of this column have taken strong stands for the privacy of individuals.

Thirteen years ago, this writer stressed the sanctity of private telephone conversations when talking to reporters or any other person. The Jan. 6, 1985 Where I Stand column reads as follows:

"Did you know that newspaper reporters cannot record your conversation with them when interviewing you over the telephone? It's illegal for them to do so without your permission. In fact, it's illegal for anybody in Nevada to record a telephone conversation without a court order or permission from both parties conversing.

"That's the way it is -- and that's the way it should remain. The privacy of individuals has been violated enough without further intrusion with additional wiretap powers being sought by Nevada's attorney general.

"Attorney General Brian McKay, of all people, should appreciate the grief the abuse of police powers can cause innocent people. Little more than two years have passed since McKay was target of an unfair investigation conducted for political purposes."

Very simply, a reporter from this newspaper has to ask for your permission to tape any part of an interview.

Nothing has changed since then, despite two attempts made and rejected by the 1989 and 1991 Nevada State Legislatures. Before that, in 1979, some Northern Nevada newspapers wanted Gov. Bob List to call a special legislative session to approve unrestricted wiretap power for the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Wisely, he rejected the pressure and by the regular 1981 session the cry for extraordinary powers had subsided.

During the 1989 Legislature another attempt was made to allow one person consent for the taping of a telephone conversation. Legislators, led by Sen. Spike Wilson, D-Reno, saw the danger of law enforcement or some unscrupulous scam artist squeezing a person into leading an innocent friend into making remarks that could be used against them. This can be done now, but only by law enforcement people with the approval of a judge and is limited to specific serious crimes. This necessity is a form of protection that the bill was designed to eliminate. It failed. So did another attempt to weaken this protection in 1991 fail to pass.

Today, some people who would like to use one-person consent telephone taping for personal and political gains would like to have us believe its only denied by a foggy and debatable law. This is pure nonsense as making legal one person consent has been discussed and turned back by Nevada lawmakers at least four times during the past 25 years. Nevadans just don't want their personal privacy invaded any more than it is at this time.

In 1965 Hank Greenspun wrote in this column that "To use any means to punish political enemies or to apprehend criminals, regardless of how repugnant the methods, takes a peculiar kind of mind. Those who have used police-state methods in the past have turned out to be sick indeed, and wanton disregard for the rights of the individual is a strong symptom."

Although I have found several reasons to disagree with former U.S. Attorney Ramsey Clark since he left office, he did display exceptional insight when writing "Crime in America." He wrote, "Privacy is the basis of individuality. To be alone and be let alone, to be with chosen company, to say what you think or don't think, but to say what you will, is to be yourself."

He continued to write, "Few conversations would be what they are if the speakers thought others were listening. Silly, secret, thoughtless and thoughtful statements would all be affected. The sheer numbers in our lives, the anonymity of urban living and the inability to influence things that are important are depersonalizing and dehumanizing factors of modern life. To penetrate the last refuge of the individual, the precious little privacy that remains, the basis of individual dignity, can have meaning to the quality of our lives that we cannot foresee. In terms of present values that meaning cannot be good."

Taping your telephone calls without judicial authority or the consent of both parties is strictly illegal according to Nevada law and it should remain this way.

archive