More like this
There's been a lot of attention the last couple years to the possibility of brain-based lie detector tests -- most of it premature. That coverage, I see now, has overlooked (as did I!) a 2005 study that showed compulsive liars are wired differently -- in an unexpected way -- than the rest of us.…
... Martin Hertzberg did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues ...
It's hard to imagine anyone packing more lies and distortions into a single commentary. Mr. Hertzberg uses libelous language in characterizing the…
(Cartoon by Steve Greenberg; Hat tip to Crooks & Liars.)
Long held to be the window to the soul, research published today in PLoS shows that the eyes are not the tell-tale Achilles heel of liars, despite what as NLP practitioners, Hollywood and innumerable armchair mentalists would have you believe. Snip:
For decades many NLP practitioners have claimed…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it perfectly legal to record a phone conversation if one of the two parties is aware, and it's not to be used for commercial purposes? Or at least, if the jurisdiction of the person making the recording doesn't have a specific law saying it's illegal (e.g. California)?
@Jason - it's legal. Besides that - the kid is in Canada.
Jason,
Usually it will depend on the reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e., if it is not announced, there is an expectation of privacy. If it came to a court case, however, it will depend on the law in the state of the affected person, i.e., if someone in Virginia calls someone in Maryland, the caller could claim no harm because they were aware of the recording but they may be held liable under Maryland law because the recipient of the call could claim harm by not being informed the call was being recorded, i.e., in Virginia one party must know whereas in Maryland both parties must know.
I don't know where the recipient of the call was. DI is in Washington State, but I've heard Luskin is in DC. Washinton State requires that within state recorded calls have consent of all parties. Canada requires one party. So she followed the law in Canada, broke the law in Washington. I'm not sure what the meaning of that is legally.
I suppose we'll be hearing calls for invading Canadia again....
Are you kidding, Greg? DuWayne and Toaster Sunshine are both all over that at their respective blogs.
It's legal in Canada if ONE party knows it's being recorded, or so I understand.
Lunkin forgets that to complain for Fox, one must be authorized by Fox to do so.
So, are we invading then?
Absofuckinglutely!!!!!1!111!!!1
But we are not planning the invasion in a super-secret base on the bottom of Lake Superior, we are not planting a moosemindcontrol ray on Mackinaw Island and we are definitely not engaging in psychological warfare that would include littering, rudeness and bumping into people until they go mad from repeated apologies.
We will be wreaking vengeance for Celine Dione, stealing their healthcare system and sending all their trash back to them (at least the trash they put here in MI)...
And for the record, we won't be using a giant elecromagnadoohicky type field to create a massive lens between the sun and their igloos!!!!!
Those bastards put trash in Michigan?
I should note though, that we're not invading because of this phone call thing - honestly that's kind of funny...Nor are we invading because of Neil Young, because Neil fucking rules!!!!
We're invading because of this!!!1!111!!!!
Yeah. I mean they paid us for taking it, but fuck that shit!!!!11!1!!111!1
Those hosers tricked you!!!!11!!! How dare they!!!11!!