渥太华大学交流生，急需法律方面的帮助

[向问天]

知道你在录音当事人可能故意说谎。不知道你在录音你侵犯人权。

当然是对你有利的录音你才可能拿来作为证据。

 

[uglyducking]

当然是对你有利的录音你才可能拿来作为证据。

扑个法，


As long as she was part of the conversation, it is not illegal for her to have a secret tape recorder. It would be perfectly legal to walk around and tape record every conversation you ever have. So this is not evidence that was illegally obtained, and it would be admissible in a civil court lawsuit regarding harassment. It would be illegal if she left the recorder running when she was not in the room, as that would be using electronic device to intercept a private conversation, and an offence pursuant to section 184 of the Criminal Code.

But courts have also ruled that such conversations in order to be admissible, or even if admitted in order to have any weight put on the evidence, need to be authenticated, so it is clear whose voices are being recorded, and the court must be satisfied that the recordings have not been edited or manipulated in any way. If conversations are only partially recorded or partially audible, then the concern of the court becomes exactly as you suggest, that what is recorded may be taken out of context, and tell only part of the story. Courts have been very alive to this concern, refusing to allow in evidence that may be suspect in this way or allowing it in but then later ruling that it helped to prove nothing.

 

[uglyducking]

The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in.

 

[向问天]

扑个法，


As long as she was part of the conversation, it is not illegal for her to have a secret tape recorder. It would be perfectly legal to walk around and tape record every conversation you ever have. So this is not evidence that was illegally obtained, and it would be admissible in a civil court lawsuit regarding harassment. It would be illegal if she left the recorder running when she was not in the room, as that would be using electronic device to intercept a private conversation, and an offence pursuant to section 184 of the Criminal Code.

But courts have also ruled that such conversations in order to be admissible, or even if admitted in order to have any weight put on the evidence, need to be authenticated, so it is clear whose voices are being recorded, and the court must be satisfied that the recordings have not been edited or manipulated in any way. If conversations are only partially recorded or partially audible, then the concern of the court becomes exactly as you suggest, that what is recorded may be taken out of context, and tell only part of the story. Courts have been very alive to this concern, refusing to allow in evidence that may be suspect in this way or allowing it in but then later ruling that it helped to prove nothing.

美国的，还是加拿大的？

 

[uglyducking]

美国的，还是加拿大的？

加拿大的

 

[uglyducking]

美国的，还是加拿大的？

所以，你截你自己的屏合法，但你截别人的屏是违法滴！

 

[向问天]

所以，你截你自己的屏合法，但你截别人的屏是违法滴！

楼里有我的发言

 

[uglyducking]

楼里有我的发言

不是这楼。

 

[RareEarth]

The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in.

扑个法，
As long as she was part of the conversation, it is not illegal for her to have a secret tape recorder. It would be perfectly legal to walk around and tape record every conversation you ever have. So this is not evidence that was illegally obtained, and it would be admissible in a civil court lawsuit regarding harassment. It would be illegal if she left the recorder running when she was not in the room, as that would be using electronic device to intercept a private conversation, and an offence pursuant to section 184 of the Criminal Code.

But courts have also ruled that such conversations in order to be admissible, or even if admitted in order to have any weight put on the evidence, need to be authenticated, so it is clear whose voices are being recorded, and the court must be satisfied that the recordings have not been edited or manipulated in any way. If conversations are only partially recorded or partially audible, then the concern of the court becomes exactly as you suggest, that what is recorded may be taken out of context, and tell only part of the story. Courts have been very alive to this concern, refusing to allow in evidence that may be suspect in this way or allowing it in but then later ruling that it helped to prove nothing.

就是说 involved 可以合法录音。但录音本身很难作为法律意义上的证据

 

[uglyducking]

就是说 involved 可以合法录音。但录音本身很难作为法律意义上的证据

针孔摄像机伺候。

 

[Melody]

针孔摄像机伺候。

wow！
越来越认真了哈！
偷录能成为法律依据么？

 

[uglyducking]

wow！
越来越认真了哈！
偷录能成为法律依据么？

你要是录的时候在场的话，大概能。

 

[求助！法律问题]

学校的律师已经在和她联系了。

 

[求助！法律问题]

Ok. 下边就不用你操心了。 我说过老太太白送你过关于。

新房子找到了么？

还没有，这两天都在忙这个事情。

 

[求助！法律问题]

今天的消息是，她把钱从1000降到了500现在又降到了300，然后我就可以拿东西走人了。