Conversation Recording
-
This came out of an offline discussion with @scottalanmiller about the legality of surveillance cameras.
The talk turned to audio, and ended up hitting this thread:
https://www.mangolassi.it/topic/11785/recording-employee-calls-at-work-in-the-usI have a difference of opinion on two party recordings.
I contend that a two party conversation can be recorded, if 1 party consent and notification is legal in your state. I understand there is a difference between consent and notification. However, in a 2 party conversation, 1 party consent is also notification to that party.
For example, see this article in Texas where they are trying to ban 1 party consent. Which would mean that it is indeed legal to record such calls in Texas.
http://watchdog.org/218789/one-party-consent-texas/However, there are some states which also require 2 party notification. (A different number of states than require 2 party consent.) Which again says to me that the states understand the difference between notification and consent, and have justifiably made the laws as such.
Finally, I understand and agree with the notification in the other thread. If there are more than two parties, then there must be notification to ALL (but not consent ... they can just hang up). THAT is what I believe the reference to Texas and the Patriot Act is discussing. That in conversation with more than two people, all parties must be notified.
-
So we have this same sort of thing when we are called into a teleconference, our conference line provider has the system configured to announce that "This call will be recorded" when the host clicks record.
This is both the announcement and chance to decline the call (by hanging up). I think that it's a rather easy and simple approach, announce it before recording for all parties, and they have the choice to hang up.
Of course, then they would miss the conference call.
-
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
-
And any law that uses "conversation" doesn't apply to audio recording in a home because the recording is not based on a conversation. What if you are recording only a single person, not two or more? Still need consent and notification, right? But who gives either? Unless you feel that the person recording is the other party, then you can record anyone, anytime by nature of being a consenting spy?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
And any law that uses "conversation" doesn't apply to audio recording in a home because the recording is not based on a conversation. What if you are recording only a single person, not two or more? Still need consent and notification, right? But who gives either? Unless you feel that the person recording is the other party, then you can record anyone, anytime by nature of being a consenting spy?
Well, I would assume that if you have a camera and are recording at home, any audio would be illegal.
When I googled this whole video/audio thing, it was a gray area. But it definitely seemed like you should always turn off audio to be safe.
-
In New York places of business. (just randomly picking here) Old Navy can record audio and video of you in their place of business with a sign on the front door which says "Audio and Video recording on premise"
Or something along those lines anyways. And that resolves the issue, the customer can refuse to enter the store (assuming they can read) or can enter and shop.
It's a matter of informing the other parties, and then they have the choice to continue or not.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
In New York places of business. (just randomly picking here) Old Navy can record audio and video of you in their place of business with a sign on the front door which says "Audio and Video recording on premise"
Or something along those lines anyways. And that resolves the issue, the customer can refuse to enter the store (assuming they can read) or can enter and shop.
It's a matter of informing the other parties, and then they have the choice to continue or not.
My particular issue is the recording of workers in our house. For various reasons we do not want them to know the cameras are there.
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
My particular issue is the recording of workers in our house. For various reasons we do not want them to know the cameras are there.
In your personal residence?
What state are you in? It's your house (and not a place of business) so I'd think you'd be allowed to do what you want with it.
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
Why though? What makes them knowing or not knowing that there are more people a factor when they don't have any right to being notified anyway?
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
And any law that uses "conversation" doesn't apply to audio recording in a home because the recording is not based on a conversation. What if you are recording only a single person, not two or more? Still need consent and notification, right? But who gives either? Unless you feel that the person recording is the other party, then you can record anyone, anytime by nature of being a consenting spy?
Well, I would assume that if you have a camera and are recording at home, any audio would be illegal.
When I googled this whole video/audio thing, it was a gray area. But it definitely seemed like you should always turn off audio to be safe.
Seems unlikely to be the answer. Basically all recording is illegal under that approach.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
Why though? What makes them knowing or not knowing that there are more people a factor when they don't have any right to being notified anyway?
What?
Honestly what does mean?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
In New York places of business. (just randomly picking here) Old Navy can record audio and video of you in their place of business with a sign on the front door which says "Audio and Video recording on premise"
Or something along those lines anyways. And that resolves the issue, the customer can refuse to enter the store (assuming they can read) or can enter and shop.
It's a matter of informing the other parties, and then they have the choice to continue or not.
Right, that's "all party notification."
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
In New York places of business. (just randomly picking here) Old Navy can record audio and video of you in their place of business with a sign on the front door which says "Audio and Video recording on premise"
Or something along those lines anyways. And that resolves the issue, the customer can refuse to enter the store (assuming they can read) or can enter and shop.
It's a matter of informing the other parties, and then they have the choice to continue or not.
My particular issue is the recording of workers in our house. For various reasons we do not want them to know the cameras are there.
That's the bigger issues, not wanting to notify. As their employer, or potential employer, you are under all party notification laws federally. That includes video, I believe.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
My particular issue is the recording of workers in our house. For various reasons we do not want them to know the cameras are there.
In your personal residence?
What state are you in? It's your house (and not a place of business) so I'd think you'd be allowed to do what you want with it.
They are working there, paid, it's a place of business.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
Why though? What makes them knowing or not knowing that there are more people a factor when they don't have any right to being notified anyway?
What?
Honestly what does mean?
I'm asking.... what does "knowledge of number of people" have to do with the situation? What law mentions a need to tell people how many people are there?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
Why though? What makes them knowing or not knowing that there are more people a factor when they don't have any right to being notified anyway?
What?
Honestly what does mean?
I'm asking.... what does "knowledge of number of people" have to do with the situation? What law mentions a need to tell people how many people are there?
Ah, so this might be along the lines of "announcing call party members". Kind of like saying "Hi Dustin, this is Scott and I have Danielle here on the call with me"
I don't know it it matters legally, but it's a witness to the conversation, recorded or not.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
Why though? What makes them knowing or not knowing that there are more people a factor when they don't have any right to being notified anyway?
What?
Honestly what does mean?
I'm asking.... what does "knowledge of number of people" have to do with the situation? What law mentions a need to tell people how many people are there?
Ah, so this might be along the lines of "announcing call party members". Kind of like saying "Hi Dustin, this is Scott and I have Danielle here on the call with me"
I don't know it it matters legally, but it's a witness to the conversation, recorded or not.
Right, but if they are a witness, then they can do the recording with their own consent and notifying themselves. So that opens up the door for "anyone can spy and record, by the nature of being a spy." It's basically the "it's okay to spay" law, it that were how it read.
-
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
What state are you in? @scottalanmiller said that this is a place of business, is that true. Or is this your residence and you are hiring someone to come and perform work in your house?
