Comments on: Federal & State Telephone Recording Laws

By: CK

CK — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:04:37 +0000

Yes, you’re right.

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:43:33 +0000

I’ve been wondering about the consent issue myself when calling customer service lines. In California (where I am), the law states ‘The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto.’ Wouldn’t a recorded announcement by the company I’m calling that states “this call may/might be recorded” automatically mean that this call no longer qualifies as a “confidential communication”?

By: CK

CK — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:11:19 +0000

I believe they get them to sign a release eventually.

By: codename_47

codename_47 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:32:53 +0000

I would say yes. They gave you notice, and I have never seen a reciprocal duty to notify.

By: daemondust

daemondust — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:57:49 +0000

Exactly. It’s one of those set phrases that’s made it into the public lexicon, but nobody stops to think what they’re literally saying.

Those that are sloppy with their phrasing, especially after it’s passed through ‘legal’, deserve what they get.

By: daemondust

daemondust — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:56:26 +0000

Maybe they limit themselves to single party consent states?

By: saladdin

saladdin — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:54:21 +0000

Silly question. How do shows like Crank Yankers get away with recording people? I’m sure they don’t let people in on the joke before calling and get permission.

saladdin

By: kosmo @ The Casual Observer

kosmo @ The Casual Observer — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:24:24 +0000

Yeah, I think the problem is that they are incorrectly using the word “may” when they really mean to say “might”.

By: CK

CK — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:32:05 +0000

what?
“you have to notify the other party that you are recording the conversation, not that the conversation is being recorded.”

?confused

By: daemondust

daemondust — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:04:36 +0000

What’s the difference between “This call may be recorded….” and “We allow you to record this call”? They’re playing lose with their corporate double speak. A literal interpretation of their phrasing would indicate they’re giving you permission to record.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:58:19 +0000

I haven’t but I don’t think that argument is valid because you have to notify the other party that you are recording the conversation, not that the conversation is being recorded. The laws are all written in a way that puts the burden of notification on the recorder, even if there are two. It seems silly but that’s how I’d interpret it.

By: John DeFlumeri Jr

John DeFlumeri Jr — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:57:41 +0000

Good article you have here. It’s possible to get in a lot of trouble with unauthorized recordings. Have a great Thanksgiving too!

John DeFlumeri Jr

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:31:37 +0000

I’ve actually heard the other argument daemondust brought up as well. While I’ve never heard of it going to court, the argument was that the person on the other line (customer service lets say) knew that they were being recorded already. Since that was case, you recording the conversation was legal without informing them (I’m in PA btw).

Have you heard of anything like this going to court?

By: BrianC

BrianC — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:38:02 +0000

Very interesting info. Thanks.

By: CK

CK — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:02:48 +0000

In an all party state you just have to notify the other party that you are taping the call. a la “Be aware I’m recording our conversation.”

If they choose to continue talking they are considered to have consented.