We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
70

The recording is not illegal because you've been told it would happen, and by not hanging up, you've agreed to have a conversation that can be recorded. This was determined in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. applying the exception of Penal Code 632 that communications are not considered confidential if there is a reasonable expectation that the call ...


28

No, it’s not illegal You have been informed that the call will be recorded. If you continue with the call having that knowledge you have consented to the recording. If you don’t consent you can hang up. If you need to communicate with them and don’t want to be recorded, do it in writing or in person.


5

Everything is allowed unless the law says it isn’t Common law systems like the USA are ‘exceptions based’ - the law permits everything except what it prohibits. So, your question is backwards - rather than looking for laws that allow it, you need to look for laws that prohibit, restrict or regulate it. There are laws that regulate this but none that ...


4

"One-party consent" law governs recording of conversations in New York state and under federal law. What that means is that a conversation can be recorded, provided one of the parties consent. You can publish any legally-acquired material, or send it to journalists.


4

Authority A lot of this falls under life skills and common sense, rather than law per se. If you've lived and worked in skyscrapers and laboratories and corporate environments these are things you just come to know. Maybe some of this comes from being a Boy Scout growing up as well. Calling 911 Usually there would be a law prohibiting employment ...


3

The California wiretapping law applies to "confidential communications", where a party has reasonable expectation of privacy. Organizations often have an announcement that you hear when you are on hold announcing that the conversation may be recorded. If you announce that a conversation is being recorded, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. They ...


3

If they are recording you, you can record them Assuming that recording requires two-party consent (not all places do), when they informed you that the call may be recorded, they gave consent to it being recorded (obviously) and you gave consent by not hanging up. The consent requirement has been met so anyone and everyone can record it.


3

This document is a handy summary of US laws. The primary distinction is between one-party and all-party consent states. In California, all parties must "consent" to recording, but in Georgia, only one party has to consent. "Consent" can be implicit, so if someone announces that they are recording, consent has been effectively given (that's not a hard and ...


3

someone I spoke with said "there is to be no recording of this or any other calls". Must I follow this instruction? Although, in Canada, there is no requirement on you to obtain consent to make recording, this explicit objection creates a hurdle. If you simply ignore the objection and record the conversation anyway without letting the objecting party know, ...


3

The legal basis is simple. What is not forbidden is allowed. Companies may have employees abroad. Thise are subject to foreign labor law. When those employees produce goods tjat are imported, additional rules apply to the imported goods (varies per product). When the employees provide services, additional service-specific rules could apply. The keyword is ...


3

There is no way to know for absolute sure. The statutes do not address the question, so one would look at the case law. There appear to be about a dozen wiretapping cases that made it to the court of appeals in Maryland, and none of them involve implied consent (e.g. where it is announced prior to recording that the call may or will be recorded – prior is ...


2

Recording phone calls is generally governed by wiretapping law such as 18 USC 2511. The law starts by addressing the proscribed act, which is if one (I'll get to "one" below, which is the crux of the matter) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or ...


2

Offices of a Multi-national company are subject too the laws of the nation an office is currently branched in and are usually incorperated under the second nations' laws and not the first. For example, if I start the company Acme Co in the United States, but I put my product complaint hot line in India, I'd set up a company Acme India in India for the ...


2

Yes, you can do this. What you cannot do with the recording though: Publish it (putting it on Facebook or otherwise make it available to anybody other than you) Sell it Advertise that you have it and allow others to listen to it (similar to publishing it) But you can, with some additional documentation, use it in a court proceeding provided that you make ...


1

First of all "spamming" is not the same thing as "scamming." But if you believe that the source is intentionally "spamming" or "scamming" there are places to report it (FTC, USA.gov). Going vigilante is not wise. For one thing, if you are wrong and they can show they are advertising in good faith, you may be guilty of making "harassing phone calls", which is ...


1

No. In general, a business is not required to provide proof of interaction with a customer, though if you sue them for breach of contract because they failed to do something they are required to do, they would need to provide the proof to the court that they actually did it, if that is their claim. It is always possible that there is some contractual ...


1

Considering that there would be good reasons for such a policy, it's unlikely that there's a specific law agaisnt it. An in-house security/fire department is the appropriate organization to coordinate with external responders. It wouldn't be useful if the public Fire department arrives at a closed gate, for instance. The police department might find the ...


1

Technically the states that aren't 1 party consent are all-party consent. See Washington's RCW 9.73.030 for an example. (1)...it shall be unlawful ...to intercept, or record ... without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication (3)...consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all ...


1

In the US, there is actually a lot of legislation that protects people from such annoyances. For example, if you are on the National Do Not Call List then telemarketers are not allowed to call you. They will still call anyway on occasion, "by accident". You can then ask them to take you off the list, and they will usually comply. Unfortunately you will have ...


1

Yes, in a two-party state you are breaking the law. Consent is implied when you play a "this call may be monitored..." to the parties at the beginning of the call, so that they have the option to hang up. From experience, you know that you only hear that message at the beginning of a phone call, not whenever some new person comes on the line. I don't know of ...


1

You just have to make sure that the counter party knows they are being recorded. Imagine the cops got your phone and charged you with wiretapping. How would you demonstrate to the court that the counter parties were informed of the recording? That's the question you want to be able to answer. You can use an automated system. Some automated systems not only ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible