Recording phone conversations to a PC

[Guest]

I have put this in the general section in response to a post I placed about
recording phone conversations to a PC

Carey Frisch, ( MVP ) made a fair an interesting point.

Here in the UK we seem to be under a misconception about the laws governing
the recording of phone conversations.
I will explain what was said to me by a solicitor on this same said subject.

However as a matter of courtesy or legal requirement the other party should
be informed

Two years ago I was involved in a civil court case during which it was
revealed a phone conversation I had had three years previously had been
recorded, it was one of many among others. The conversation its self was
insignificant. It was not used in court, just referred to but the court was a
little unhappy but the matter was resolved.

It turns out, and this is my understanding, that if a conversation is
recorded to refer back to later, say if one has a poor memory and you need to
respond to the conversation by letter and it was not the intention to use it
for any other reason their is no legal requirement to inform anyone that the
conversation is being recorded and your not infringing anyone's rights.

The law is clearer, ( you must ), if your reason for doing so was because of
a possible dispute later, who said what to whom or you suspected such a thing
might happen and of coarse all business who do so must inform.

However and I put this to the Data Protection Commissionaire Office, what if
one records a phone conversation that leads to a criminal act or is its self
threatening, where does one stand,
The DPCO didn't respond.

That's my understanding of the law, go ahead people shoot me down in flames.

 

[Guest]

Phone conversations can be and are recorded almost always on a business
conversation these days.The recorded conversation is usually used for
training
and/or evaluation purposes,however anyone who places or accepts a call has
the right to record it..

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Wrong! The party whose conversation is to be recorded must be
informed of and consent to the recording....at least in the U.S.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Andrew E." naively wrote:

| Phone conversations can be and are recorded almost always on a business
| conversation these days.The recorded conversation is usually used for
| training
| and/or evaluation purposes,however anyone who places or accepts a call has
| the right to record it..

 

[HeyBub]

Wrong! The party whose conversation is to be recorded must be
informed of and consent to the recording....at least in the U.S.

Wrong. Two-party consent is determined by individual state law (there is no
federal law on the subject).

I'm in Texas. And I may record conversations at will without the permission
or knowledge of the party on the other end.

 

[HeyBub]

Phone conversations can be and are recorded almost always on a
business conversation these days.The recorded conversation is usually
used for training
and/or evaluation purposes,however anyone who places or accepts a
call has the right to record it..

"Training or quality control" is what they SAY but the real reason is to
memorialize the call with a view toward possible future litigation.

Another lie is "Listen carefully, some of our menu options have changed." No
they haven't.

I swear the people who provide these helpful hints must think we are idiots.

On the other hand, the most fun you can have is to get put on hold with
Southwest Airlines reservations.

(one minute of music)....
Voice: "Did you ever wonder whether we can hear what you're saying while the
music's playing?"
(another minute of music)
Voice: "If you feel you have been on hold for too long, press the 'Star'
key. Nothing will happen, but you'll have something to do while you wait."
(another minute of music)
and so on

 

[Guest]

Hello Andrew E,

Thankyou for your reply

You are wrong but right for the wrong reason
but that's ok it's, not a gray area, not even a minefield
The governing law is just a little confused in the U.K.
As I wrote you must inform where one is required to do so
but that might not necessarily mean having or needing consent.

 

[NobodyMan]

Wrong. Two-party consent is determined by individual state law (there is no
federal law on the subject).

I'm in Texas. And I may record conversations at will without the permission
or knowledge of the party on the other end.

That's true, you CAN record phone conversations to your heart's
content without notifying the other party. That being said, it would
not be in any way admissable as evidence in court (I know, I know,
many states won't allow tapes, but lately more and more courts have
allowed phone tapes to be entered as evidence).

 

[Guest]

Hello,

I read your response, you are wrong on both counts.
There are States within the U.S. where being informed is not required.

By that I mean, we have a phone conversation, from the outset I inform you I
am recording the conversation, you do not give me consent so the thing to do
would be for you to end the conversation but you don't, you continue.

At a later date, whatever the reason, I allow that recorded conversation to
be heard by others, you object strongly stating correctly you didn't give me
permission to record from the outset, you file a law suit for damages against
me, it would be thrown out, ( 1) You should have ended the conversation, ( 2
) Under your constitution one can not take away or limit ones right to record
a phone conversation, ( 3 ) Where being informed is required that doesn't
necessarily equate to having consent, ( informed being the only legal
requirement ).

I believe under U.S. and British law there is an assumption that once
informed a phone conversation is being recorded you are aware it might be
referred to or used at a later date.
Sandal

 

[Guest]

Hello,
I read your response, you are wrong

Refer me to section in Texas state law where it states you can record at
will without informing.

Is that true about Southwest Airlines, gosh that's funny, only once or twice
maybe but funny none the less.

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

It all depends on who initiated the call. I abide by, and am protected by, the
laws in the state I reside in.

Please move on as you are not a legal expert by any means.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| Hello,
|
| I read your response, you are wrong on both counts.
| There are States within the U.S. where being informed is not required.
|
| By that I mean, we have a phone conversation, from the outset I inform you I
| am recording the conversation, you do not give me consent so the thing to do
| would be for you to end the conversation but you don't, you continue.
|
| At a later date, whatever the reason, I allow that recorded conversation to
| be heard by others, you object strongly stating correctly you didn't give me
| permission to record from the outset, you file a law suit for damages against
| me, it would be thrown out, ( 1) You should have ended the conversation, ( 2
| ) Under your constitution one can not take away or limit ones right to record
| a phone conversation, ( 3 ) Where being informed is required that doesn't
| necessarily equate to having consent, ( informed being the only legal
| requirement ).
|
| I believe under U.S. and British law there is an assumption that once
| informed a phone conversation is being recorded you are aware it might be
| referred to or used at a later date.
| Sandal

 

[Guest]

Carey,Carey, Carey,

Wrong again it doesn't matter who initiated the call.
As for not being a legal expert, you are right but clearly on this subject
better informed then you.
As for moving on, this is not just your forum, others may have more to say
on a given subject, right or wrong, if you have had your fill, go away, help
others on another subject.

 

[Bob I]

You are a bit confused about law. Unless prohibited, it is legal to do
something.

 

[Tom Pepper Willett]

A ONE PARTY STATE means one party to the telephone conversation has to
have knowledge and give consent before the recording can legally
occur.

In a TWO PARTY STATE, all parties must have knowledge and give consent
before the recording can legally occur.

"Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you
to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing
the other parties you are doing so. Federal wiretap statutes also
permit one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most
circumstances. Twelve states forbid the recording of private
conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and
Washington."
HANDBOOK: SURREPTITIOUS RECORDING
http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html

Tom
| You are a bit confused about law. Unless prohibited, it is legal to do
| something.
|
| Sandal wrote:
|
| > Hello,
| > I read your response, you are wrong
| >
| > Refer me to section in Texas state law where it states you can record at
| > will without informing.
| >
| > Is that true about Southwest Airlines, gosh that's funny, only once or
twice
| > maybe but funny none the less.
|