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

The difference in their treatment is because of the asymmetry in the law. There are "wiretapping" laws pertaining to interception of voice communication, which do not include photographic recording. It is generally illegal to "intercept" an oral, wire or electronic communication (direct conversation, literal wire tap, or listening in on wireless speech): ...


4

The opt-out option is exercised by hanging up the phone. The federal wiretapping law 18 USC 2511 would contain any specific restrictions on recording federal employees, and there are no such restrictions. Each state has their own laws as well, so if either party is in a two-consent state such as Florida, consent from the other party would be required. The ...


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

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 ...


3

Better Call Saul is set in New Mexico where as long as one-person involved in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded, it is legal. Known as "one-party consent". This varies state to state. http://www.detectiveservices.com/2012/02/27/state-by-state-recording-laws/ http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm If neither Jimmy nor Chuck knew ...


3

Secretly recording a person is a crime in California: consent from all parties to the communication is required, and the maximum penalty is $2,500 and 1 year in prison. It does not matter whether to person has been convicted for some other crime (except that this could be a serious matter for a person out on parole). In addition, the person who is recorded ...


2

The hosting provider could indeed argue that disabling encryption of your SMTP to protect their network does fall under the category of "being used...in the ordinary course of its business". They are also "the provider of electronic communication", both of which give them a huge argument of immunity granted by section 5(a)(2). other than— (a)(ii) ...


2

Is it legal to intercept radio communications in the 2.4Ghz band in the United Kingdom? No—the interception of any radio communication in the United Kingdom is an offence under Section 48(1)(a) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006: A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a designated person, he uses wireless telegraphy ...


2

"Any federal surveillance" is too broad to address (it could involve agents watching a person while at Starbucks, which is currently legal), but the question of wiretapping can be answered with reference to specific law. 18 USC 2511 is the federal wiretapping statute, which generally outlaws "wiretapping" – i.e., recording a conversation where neither party ...


2

It turns out that TV is not entirely faithful to reality, so plot development may explain something. I don't know where the calls were made from and to, but if both parties are in New Mexico, the recording is legal, since New Mexico is a 1-party consent state. If either party is in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, ...


1

Yes, it's illegal When party consent states differ, the state with the stricter laws apply. Not only can criminal charges be brought against you, but there can also be a civil claims for damages. Recording Phone Calls and Conversations


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