No, I actually don’t know that. I was assuming I’d get hung up on. Now that we’re discussing it, I think from now on whenever I hear “this call may be recorded (which is almost all the time)” I’m going to respond, “I may be recording you too.”
About ten years ago I had an answering machine which allowed me to record conversations I was having on the phone and the machine would beep every five or ten seconds or so and I seem to remember the instruction manual saying the regular beep was all that was required legally to let the other party know they were being recorded.
I have a very limited comment about this. It’s true to the best of my knowledge, but may have changed since the time frame.
While a family member was in ICU, (in California), I would call for an up date each morning. I was told each day that the conversation was being recorded. For the duration of the call, a beep would sound every few seconds to confirm the recording continued.
Later, I worked in a hospital where all calls between nurses and physicians required recording. The same intermittent beep verified, to both parties, that the recording was on-going.
During that time, I was given an information sheet, by my employer, saying that California law required the intermittent beep to verify continued recording.
I Know when I worked for a internet provider many many many years ago we required to immediately hang up if someone indicated they were recording the call.
That would be my position. As long as they phrase it like you said, the word “may” can mean either that recording the call is allowed, or that the possibility of recording exists. If I choose to assume the former, I need not inform them that I am making a recording, they have already given permission.
Does “this call may be monitored” have the same legal meaning as “this call may be recorded?” Suppose I call a company and receive the message “this call may be monitored for quality assurance.” Suppose that during the call I say something that comes back to bite me in the ass. Down the road we end up in civil proceedings and the company trots out a recording of the conversation. Can I then get that recording thrown out because I only consented to “monitoring” rather than “recording?”
Of course not. It is absolutely legal in Texas, where we were located. What I was a saying is that if you are trying to resolve something customer service wise with a company and you anounce you are recording the call you may find that nobody at the company will talk to you; which is a bit counter productive.
This is an intriquing plan, actually. Since no human being on the receiving end will probably ever hear you tell them you might record the call – their “this call may be recorded…” messages sound like automated outgoing messages only – they would probably argue that they never gave consent to being recorded.
You could then say, “Sure you did. After you said that you might record the call, I said that I might record the call, too. I didn’t hang up and didn’t object, and neither did you, so we both gave consent.”
If they say, “But you said you might be recording the call when no one was listening on our end,” couldn’t you say, “Well that’s just too bad. It’s a phone call. If you can presume that I’m listening when you ask for consent, why can’t I presume you’re listening when I ask, only seconds later?”
I don’t think that is a problem. AFAIK, you have to follow the rules of recording in the state YOU are in. What the rules of recording are in the state the other party is in is not your concern.
in canada, i know its legal to record any conversation if the other party has been clearly informed about said recording. its illigeal to record it without there permission
It’s not quite that simple. This page from the site Washoe posted above says that actions have been brought arguing that the laws of the state that was called should apply. In at least one case, that argument might have carried the day, but the case was decided on other issues.
The page says, “In light of the differing state laws governing electronic recording of conversations between private parties, journalists are advised to err on the side of caution when recording or disclosing an interstate telephone call. The safest strategy is to assume that the stricter state law will apply.”
An update: The bank’s attorney called me the other day and said they would give me my rate. I asked for something in writing, which hopefully I will get in the next week or so.
Unfortunately, the top people at the bank are in 2-party consent states, so I don’t want to take the risk of recording the calls.