Phonecall recording software

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Seeliger
  • Start date Start date
J

John Seeliger

Is there any good phonecall recording software for use with a voice modem.
On download.com, I could only find trialware, some fairly cheap, some
expensive and the ones I tried either didn't work or beeped every 15
seconds. Annoying and not discrete.

Thanks,
-John
 
Is there any good phonecall recording software for use with a voice modem.
On download.com, I could only find trialware, some fairly cheap, some
expensive and the ones I tried either didn't work or beeped every 15
seconds. Annoying and not discrete.
Click to expand...

In other words, you want to record telephone conversations surreptitiously
without the other party being aware of it. Sneaky, underhanded and
unethical everywhere. Downright illegal in many places, and rightly so.
Why do you think we should help you spy on people?
 
Nicolaas Hawkins said:
In other words, you want to record telephone conversations surreptitiously
without the other party being aware of it. Sneaky, underhanded and
unethical everywhere. Downright illegal in many places, and rightly so.
Why do you think we should help you spy on people?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, he might be wanting to record a group telephone meeting,
and write up the minutes afterwards. I know I've wanted something like
that.

As you say it is illegal in some countries, but not every country in the
world, and as long has he as consent of the people involved in the call, he
should be okay.

Anthony
 
In other words, you want to record telephone conversations
surreptitiously without the other party being aware of it. Sneaky,
underhanded and unethical everywhere. Downright illegal in many
places, and rightly so. Why do you think we should help you spy on
people?
Click to expand...

There *are* legitimate uses for recording conversations.

--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee // www.mistergeek.com <><
Know Christ, Know Peace - No Christ, No Peace
Remove .yourhat to reply
"Better to be wise and close-mouthed than fooolish
and annouce it to all..."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
On Tue 26 Apr 2005 04:38:07, John Seeliger wrote:
Is there any good phonecall recording software for use with a
voice modem. On download.com, I could only find trialware, some
fairly cheap, some expensive and the ones I tried either didn't
work or beeped every 15 seconds. Annoying and not discrete.
Click to expand...

Pocket Voice Recorder is freeware from http://www.xemico.com/pvr/ and
will record up to 10 minutes but only from a line input such your
phone line via a transformer (or from a mic) into your sound card.
It's a bit like the $ware 'Sound Snooper' which is more like nagware
really.

Don't know about freeware for recording via a voice modem like the
many $wares. (Such as Smart Phone Recorder, Modem Spy, IVM/Telephone
Answering Attendant, Telephone Spy, Call Corder, VRS Telephone Call
Recorder, etc.)
 
Sneaky, underhanded and
unethical everywhere. Downright illegal in many places, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of crap. Try recording a few long and important ones. Match
against your notes; be amazed at what you missed.
 
What a bunch of crap. Try recording a few long and important ones. Match
against your notes; be amazed at what you missed.
Click to expand...

Your OPINION that it is crap does not alter he FACT that it is sneaky,
underhanded and unethical everywhere, downright illegal in many places,
and legally dubious in most others - and you know it full well.
 
Your OPINION that it is crap does not alter he FACT that it is sneaky,
underhanded and unethical everywhere, downright illegal in many places,
and legally dubious in most others - and you know it full well.
Click to expand...

You say that like it is a bad thing! In most states it's legal,
besides I'm am of the opinion if one has the equipment one should be
allowed to tape calls, listen to any freq on a scanner, receive any TV
station, etc. It's a lot of fun.
 
Nicolaas said:
Your OPINION that it is crap does not alter he FACT that it is sneaky,
underhanded and unethical everywhere, downright illegal in many places,
and legally dubious in most others - and you know it full well.
Click to expand...

Sorry Nicolaas;

"sneaky," "underhanded," "unethical" are all qualitative, that is,
o-p-i-n-i-o-n. Not fact. Fact is, your plaints ignore legitimate uses
for this kind of product.

-Sparky
 
Sorry Nicolaas;

"sneaky," "underhanded," "unethical" are all qualitative, that is,
o-p-i-n-i-o-n. Not fact. Fact is, your plaints ignore legitimate uses
for this kind of product.
Click to expand...

You are painting with too broad a brush here, Sparky ... what I am solely
referring to is the sneaky, underhanded, unethical and legally dubious
practice of you (e.g.) surreptitiously recording our telephone
conversation without my knowledge. How do you square that off against my
constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination? (assuming for
the sake of this discussion that I am an American citizen)
 
What a bunch of crap. Try recording a few long and important ones. Match
against your notes; be amazed at what you missed.
Click to expand...

It is still illegal, in many places, without audible blips _and_
consent from all parties.

I will agree it can be amazing what you missed.
 
In other words, you want to record telephone conversations surreptitiously
Click to expand...

Where did the original poster say anything even remotely resembling
"surreptitiously"?
without the other party being aware of it. Sneaky, underhanded and
unethical everywhere. Downright illegal in many places, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

And legal in other places with the consent of all participants in the
conversation (including the place where I live).
Why do you think we should help you spy on people?
Click to expand...

How is making a copy of one's own conversation "spying"?


So, is there any such freware?
 
Nicolaas said:
You are painting with too broad a brush here, Sparky ... what I am solely
referring to is the sneaky, underhanded, unethical and legally dubious
practice of you (e.g.) surreptitiously recording our telephone
conversation without my knowledge. How do you square that off against my
constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination? (assuming for
the sake of this discussion that I am an American citizen)
Click to expand...

Hey Nicolaas;

The specific hypothetical you describe appears (I am not a lawyer) to be
illegal in my neck of the woods, the Republic of California (CPC Section
632 & 632.5). Be forewarned, however, that Fed law trumps State law in
this regard. Specifically,

--------------------------------------
US Code Title 18, Part I, Ch 119, § 2511 (Interception and disclosure of
wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited)

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this
title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an
electronic communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This has been used by the Federal government to successfully assert that
communication over wireless phones and cellular phones do not have the
same "assumption of privacy" protections as land-lines. (As an aside,
this was established well before 9/11, Patriot Act, et al.)

Legally then, for the hypothetical you describe Nicolaas, you probably
have redress in Cali courts and, probably a much weaker case in Fed courts.

Wrt "sneaky, underhanded, unethical...;" In the end, a tapping tool is,
first and foremost, a tool. The tool is not "sneaky." The tool may be
used legally or illegally, ethically or unethically. Such is the case
with a knife, p2p s/w and various monotheistic religious tracts.

Being that you wish to preserve the right of protection from
self-incrimination, it is not too much to ask that you extend the
intimately related right of "innocent until proven guilty." This would
be, as I'm sure you'd agree, the "forthright, aboveboard, ethical and
legally sound" thing to do.

regards,
-Sparky
 
Your OPINION that it is crap does not alter he FACT that it is sneaky,
underhanded and unethical everywhere, downright illegal in many places,
and legally dubious in most others - and you know it full well.
Click to expand...

Then let me be perfectly succinct. *Your* opinion that it is unethical is
*your* opinion and isn't shared by many who are posting to this thread. It
is *not* legally dubious in many states including mine, Georgia, where only
one of two on the phone need to know that the recording is happening.

Here's one thing that isn't an opinion. You haven't a ****ing idea in Hell
what you are talking about.
 
Then let me be perfectly succinct. *Your* opinion that it is unethical is
*your* opinion and isn't shared by many who are posting to this thread. It
is *not* legally dubious in many states including mine, Georgia, where only
one of two on the phone need to know that the recording is happening.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about this? I'd check your local statutes carefully
before making that claim. It is not legal in many states to record
telephone calls without permission. Even the police have to get a
court order before tapping a phone.
 
Hey Nicolaas;

The specific hypothetical you describe appears (I am not a lawyer) to be
illegal in my neck of the woods, the Republic of California (CPC Section
632 & 632.5). Be forewarned, however, that Fed law trumps State law in
this regard. Specifically,

--------------------------------------
US Code Title 18, Part I, Ch 119, § 2511 (Interception and disclosure of
wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited)

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this
title for any person?
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an
electronic communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This has been used by the Federal government to successfully assert that
communication over wireless phones and cellular phones do not have the
same "assumption of privacy" protections as land-lines. (As an aside,
this was established well before 9/11, Patriot Act, et al.)

Legally then, for the hypothetical you describe Nicolaas, you probably
have redress in Cali courts and, probably a much weaker case in Fed courts.

Wrt "sneaky, underhanded, unethical...;" In the end, a tapping tool is,
first and foremost, a tool. The tool is not "sneaky." The tool may be
used legally or illegally, ethically or unethically. Such is the case
with a knife, p2p s/w and various monotheistic religious tracts.

Being that you wish to preserve the right of protection from
self-incrimination, it is not too much to ask that you extend the
intimately related right of "innocent until proven guilty." This would
be, as I'm sure you'd agree, the "forthright, aboveboard, ethical and
legally sound" thing to do.

regards,
-Sparky
Click to expand...

Yes, in general terms I agree with what you say.
It is not the act of interception (which is not necessarily the same as
recording) but the use(s) to which it is, or can be, put that is the
possible bogey here.
As you will likely have noticed, I am not an American citizen - I am from
the other side of the world, so any detailed knowledge of American law
that I may have is sketchy at best.
But the presumption of innocence is (or should be) the same everywhere -
just because I have some horse hairs sticking out of my pocket it doesn't
necessarily follow that I have a horse in there. Nay, nay.:)
 
Where did the original poster say anything even remotely resembling
"surreptitiously"?
Click to expand...

What do the words "not discrete" (discreet!) suggest to you?

And legal in other places with the consent of all participants in the
conversation (including the place where I live).
Click to expand...

If done with the knowledge and consent of all parties, then it is hardly
being done "discreetly", is it?

How is making a copy of one's own conversation "spying"?
Click to expand...

One does not, in the normal course of events, hold a telephone
conversation with oneself. To do so would be to invite the attention of
the sanity inspectors.
 
Back
Top