I know its recorded to protect their asses in legal disputes. Thats fine. If one doesnt like it, one need not talk to them.
My question: Implicit to their terms for conversation, are they also granting permission to me to record them? Is it even Stevens, or unfair Blair?
Also, I presume they are already recording when I am informed of that. Correct?
I’m not involved in any disputes. This is merely a point of interest. I overheard someone elses phone call. It got me thinking, and dreaming of the straight dope. You know that old routine, a few efficacious replies, a few WAGs, the atrocious puns? Thats why we all come here, isnt it?
Bonus question: If I set up my phone similarly, making bill collectors, charities, et al agree to these terms, will they terminate their calls early? Will bill collectors push the matter to court, say “defendant refuses contact” or something like that?
Thats it. I’m not out of questions, but I am out of question marks.
I always assume the phrase “This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes.” as giving permission for me to record the call. It says so right there.
“Your honor, they contend “may” means possibly such as ‘We may go to the store tomorrow.’ I contend “may” means granting permission such as ‘Yes, you may go to the movies tonight.’”
Besides protecting their asses, telephone calls at my company really are recorded for quality assurance purposes. Every month managers pull a certain number of calls for each customer service representative at random for audits.
Different but related question:
Where ALL parties to a conversation must consent to be recorded (which I think is the case in CA), who or what constitutes a “party”?
Specifically, if one participant is a live natural person and the other “participant” is an automated robocaller or phone answering system, can the live person unilaterally choose to record the entire “conversation”? Is the robo-party actually a “party” with any rights?
