Editorial: Court gives dial tone for privacy

Friday, Dec. 11, 1998 | 12:25 p.m.

In a 3-2 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of privacy rights Wednesday when it ruled that the state's wiretap law prevents someone from secretly tape recording telephone conversations. Justice Bill Maupin said that, absent a court order, the intent of the Legislature was clear in that both parties must consent to the recording of a conversation for it to be legal.

Wednesday's ruling arose from an age discrimination suit filed in 1992 by Randy Lane, who was fired by Allstate Insurance Co. in Washoe County. The insurance company sought to dismiss Lane's suit, alleging that he illegally tape-recorded more than 700 telephone conversations with two of the company's executives and more than 180 witnesses.

District Court Judge Deborah Agosti, who in November was elected to the Nevada Supreme Court, correctly determined the illegality of Lane's actions and dismissed his suit. Upholding Agosti's lower-court decision, Maupin noted that the Legislature "prohibited surreptitious intrusion upon in-person, private conversations by means of any listening device."

Justices Charles Springer and Bob Rose dissented. Splitting legal hairs, Springer argued that a conversation cannot be intercepted if only two people are involved; only if a third party is listening in can the law be broken. Rose, meanwhile, believes the law only applies to public officials and law enforcement officers, not to private citizens.

Springer and Rose are both wrong. Springer should realize that one person alone can violate another individual's right to privacy; Rose misinterprets the law and fails to acknowledge that corporations and individuals are just as capable of violating privacy rights as governments are.

Some might see this as an attempt by an employee to gather information to right a wrong. The problem is that the method used violates someone else's right. While the Supreme Court is to be commended for its decision, the razor-thin vote is troubling and should serve as a warning to the precariousness of privacy.