Legality of recording phone calls under special circumstances

[commasense]

As a journalist, I sometimes record telephone calls of people I interview, always with their permission, of course. (I live less than five miles from where Linda Tripp used to live, so I have had occasion to learn about the laws of recording telephone calls in the Free State.)

However, the following entirely theoretical situation came to my mind the other day. As we all know, when calling corporate customer support lines we often hear the line, "This call may be recorded or monitored for quality control purposes." By continuing without objection, the caller give his consent to being recorded.

My question is, since both parties have given consent to being recorded by one, does the other need permission from the first to make his own recording?

I understand this probably varies by location, but I'm curious if there's an implied reciprocity to the consent one party gives, or if a case can be made for it.

[Enola Straight]

I waould assume a law adresses the right to privacy and undue intrusion of the state. Any conversation in the presence of a third party renders expectation of privacy a moot point.

I would assume that announcing the recording of a conversation in the name of quality control to be a common enough occurence and simply voicing an objection to such a recording easy enough to establish if things ever got into a courtroom.

[Enola Straight]

re. the OP;

If one announces a recording is being made on their end, that party most certainly
relinquishes expectation of privacy.

[Duckster]

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.

Source: A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C.

[commasense]

Originally Posted by Duckster

Source: A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C.

Thanks, Duckster, I had found that site, but I don't think it answers my question directly. In my theoretical case, both parties have consented to one party recording the conversation. Is explicit consent of the first party required for the second party to also make a recording?