Talk:Telephone call recording laws/Archive 1

Untitled
Does a out bound call center that is selling a product need to tell the prospect that the call is being recorded?

Shep

It depends on the country/state laws. In Brazil, call centers are implicitely required by a federal law and explicitely required by a federal decree, so it's not needed to tell the consumer/callee for the recording to be legal. But the same principles of consumer's defense and information that implicitely admits the call recordings on the law also oblige the caller to inform the callee the recordings can be obtained by request.

See (in Brazilian Portuguese): --Joaopaulo1511 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L8078.htm (Código de Defesa do Consumidor / Consumer Defense Code)
 * http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/D2181.htm (Decreto 2.181 / Decree #2.181)

FISA
The FISA information needs links to references (US code) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistlepunk (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

alatawiferas@gmail.com Alatawiferas (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiretapping content
The first sentence says that this article is about recording done by the participants, specifically not about wiretapping, but then a lot of the rest of the article is about wiretapping. Pelago (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

08727817466 Aula alaa (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

07727817466 Aula alaa (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Jojobobo120@yahoo.com Aula alaa (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm like the new update Aula alaa (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sohailansari123 Sohailansari123 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Michigan
Whether Michigan is a two-party consent state or not is still up in the air. The last court decision that was made stated that the "eavesdropping" used in the statute only refers to third-party members (see Sullivan v. Gray, 342 N.W. 2d 58, 60-61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)).

http://www.citmedialaw.org/forum/newsgathering-law/michigan-wiretapping-law-clarification

Munilwu (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The unsourced assertion about Michigan law,


 * Michigan has a similar rule: anyone who is a party to the conversation can record it himself, but a third party wishing to record the call must get the permission of all parties to the conversation.

is completely incorrect.

MCL 750.539c specifies that, "[a]ny person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully [sic] uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto [...] is guilty of a felony [...]". The law defines eavesdrop as "to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse." (539a2)

Please note that the law doesn't require mere notification, but actual permission to be granted. (Of course, I'm neglecting more complicated issues, like jurisdiction, likelihood of prosecution, actual precedent, and tort claims, because I know nothing about any of that.)

I am fixing it accordingly.

Rebbing (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was too diplomatic before. Michigan is a one-party consent state right now because of the most recent precedent. The cases being Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich App 472 (1982) and Dickerson v Raphael, 461 Mich 851(1999) (the Appeal's ruling was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court).

I'm new to editing wikipedia so I'm not going to edit (I think I might have messed it up already), but if you want more information look in the Michigan Family Law Journal vol 31 number 6 (2002).

Munilwu (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So, funny story: I stumbled here by accident, noticed Michigan was wrongly listed as a two-party state, and went to see who made that mistake. Boy was I ever surprised! Anyway, my salad years attempt at statutory interpretation aside, the law in Michigan is actually quite clear:

MCL 750.539c prohibits eavesdropping but that prohibition is limited by subsection 539a(2) to overhearing, recording, amplifying or transmitting the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. The statute does not define “discourse,” but its ordinary dictionary definition is “communication of thought by words; talk; conversation;. . . any unit of connected speech or writing longer than a sentence.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1992), p 384. Thus, “eavesdropping” is limited to overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting the private, oral, or written communication of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the communication. For that reason, a participant in a private conversation may record it without “eavesdropping” because the conversation is not the “discourse of others.” Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich App 476, 481; 324 NW2d 58 (1982).

Lewis v. Legrow, 670 N.W. 2d. 675, 683 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (slip op. at *5.).

Sullivan explains the reasoning behind the statutory interpretation:

[T]he statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to “the private discourse of others.” The statute contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on. Had the Legislature desired to include participants within the definition, the phrase “of others” might have been excluded or changed to “of others or with others.”

Plaintiff argues that MCL 750.539c. . . must apply to both participants and nonparticipants since it relates to “[a]ny person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation * * *.” We disagree. Although the phrase arguably creates an ambiguity as to the persons affected by the act, the interpretation requested by plaintiff would render inoperative the words “of others” in the statutory definition of eavesdropping. A more logical interpretation may be made that gives full effect to that statutory definition. The words “[a]ny person who is present or who is not present” merely acknowledge that eavesdropping may be committed by one who is actually in close physical proximity to a conversation or by one who is some distance away but eavesdrops utilizing a mechanical device. Quite plainly, one may be “present” during a conversation without being a party to the conversation and without his presence being apparent to those conversing. For example, the eavesdropping party could literally be under the eaves outside an open window.

Sullivan, 17 Mich. App. at 481.

The published opinions of the Michigan Court of Appeals are binding precedent. Mich. Ct. R. 7.215(J)(1). Seeing as the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court haven’t wavered from this interpretation in the thirty-one years it’s been in effect, I think it’s safe to say it’s settled law. Accordingly, I’m removing Michigan from the list of two-party states. Unless anyone can cite authority overruling Sullivan, it should stay that way.

Rebbing (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes no sense
The first sentence of the article makes the distinction between participants recording their conversations,  and the government bugging them. And then most of the rest of it is about the government bugging them. Which is it ?Eregli bob (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

One Party States
Under the one party states section, "If a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in a two-party state that caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (Cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)[26])."

This is a somewhat false statement. The ruling only applies in California, and other Federal courts in other states have ruled differently. This will eventually have to go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling. In addition, even under California's laws, a third person on the line who is known to all other participants is not considered a calling and thus may record the call.

See http://www.mofo.com/it-may-be-incredibly-easy-in-the-digital-age-but-secretly-recording-conversations-is-still-illegal-12-16-2009/

In most other places, it has been ruled that the law applies for the state in which the recording device was located.

173.53.70.114 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Two Party States
It would be nice to have an explanation of the general reasoning behind requiring all parties to be notified and the pros and cons of this reasoning. GTGeek88 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is useless or harmful, I suggest it be deleted or heavily reduced
Even though the subject states it is about rules on participants recording their own calls the article is a mess of wire-tap, business phone calls retention and private persons' call rules, casually mixed toghether. A few sections are good, such as for example Latvia, Danmark, others are misleading and misplaced, such as India. It would be useful to have possibility of learning what are the wiretap rules accross the World, however, they are completely different from the rules on own call recordings (strictly speaking it is not even clear that there should be such rules at all) and those two should not be put togeher even if they were distinguishable from each other, much less in a senseless mix.

Bete (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How do state laws apply to cell phones? The cell phone user could be in any state.
I want to record cell phone conversations with my exhusband. We both live in Virginia, but he travels out of state 90% of the time. Does it matter what state or country the recorded party is in? Vabirder (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This call maybe monitored or recorded for ...
If a call service IVR system says "This call maybe monitored or recorded for ..." does that give you implicit consent to record and/or rebroadcast/share the call as well? What are the laws governing this in various locations? I think a mention of this is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.94.97 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually came here to figure this out myself. 76.122.3.178 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have many links to sell the articles to the party because the party does not chamged at the moment thats why i save all call have record in my phone Mehar chandok (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

But some time the call is very important to record but call recorder is not there in the phone that time trouble is here Mehar chandok (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This call recorder os genueine all calls were recording in phone Mehar chandok (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Call recorder is very important app this systm already in phone to do not purchase the app firstly then to login is very long process Mehar chandok (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree all the terms Mehar chandok (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk
100% Milad harki (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I need it desperately Pamavailable (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I need a talk Kiani32 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I need a talk Kiani32 (talk) 12:35,10 March 2018(UTC) Kiani32 (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Waiting Enrahim (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok 1Renda31 (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Renee 1Renda31 (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Telephone recording laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923163252/http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111100456/http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm to http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Boy
18 Amirhossein.ebn (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Darnocs1 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC) darnocs1 Darnocs1 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC) I accidentally messed up the link to Footnote 29 on the United States state list because I couldn't edit the actual footnote itself. It shows up as footnote 40. At any rate, someone with access should update to this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180729073130/http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/tape-recording-laws-glance as the direct link is broken