# Recording converstation after "May be recorded" notice **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 29, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188 "2011-04-29T17:57:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188/1 "2011-04-29T17:57:57Z")
Would I be breaching wiretapping laws if I were to record a conversation in which I was given notice that the conversation may be recorded? For instance, say I call customer support of xyz company. I get the message that calls may be recorded. Is it legal at that point for me to start my own recording? Or would I have to wait until I have someone on the line, then give them notice? My own gut says that the other operator has no expectation of privacy. However, I could see an instance where the party on the other line has the ability to start recording. Up until they start recording themselves, they may have an expectation of privacy. I did some searches and I wasn’t able to find anything specific to this type of question. Anyone have any applicable knowledge? ---
**Author:** ![realmojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b3f665/32.png) [@realmojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/realmojo)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188/2 "2011-04-29T19:05:12Z")
Depends on where you are calling from. In Colorado, for example, we can legally record a phone conversation as long as 50% of the parties involved know it’s being recorded. If it’s a two person conversation, do the math. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188/3 "2011-04-29T19:10:41Z")
I’m in PA, a “two-party” state. But since I’m already given notice of recording, do I have to provide that same notice since there may be an expectation of privacy? I’m sure the safe bet would be to just make them aware and cover my own bases as I have no knowledge IF they’re recording and the other party may have that knowledge which would give them the expectation of privacy. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188/4 "2011-04-29T19:13:55Z")
If they say, “this call may be recorded”, I think you can make an argument that they are giving permission - after all, they did say this call MAY be recorded. I’m sure they meant it in the sense of “we might or might not record this call, at our discretion”, but the sentence also logically could mean, “Yes, it’s is alright to record it”. Fun. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188/5 "2011-04-29T19:15:36Z")
You can always inform the other person on the line you are also recording the conversation. It might be kind of interesting if they object to being recorded by you, but are requiring you to be recorded by them. > [@](#): > > 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. [Taping constitutes 'interception' of call, court finds | The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press](http://www.rcfp.org/taping/) Based on the above, they gave you notice and you consent to their taping of the conversation. IANAL, but it seems to me those 12 states require you to inform the other party you are also recording them. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188/6 "2011-04-29T19:15:48Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > If they say, “this call may be recorded”, I think you can make an argument that they are giving permission - after all, they did say this call MAY be recorded. I’m sure they meant it in the sense of “we might or might not record this call, at our discretion”, but the sentence also logically could mean, “Yes, it’s is alright to record it”. > > Fun. That’s funny. I never thought to interpret it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188/7 "2011-04-29T19:40:43Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > Based on the above, they gave you notice and you consent to their taping of the conversation. IANAL, but it seems to me those 12 states require you to inform the other party you are also recording them. But why? The other party has obviously already consented to having the conversation recorded, since they plan on (possibly) recording it. Does the law specifically require that they consent to **MY** recording it? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-converstation-after-may-be-recorded-notice/580188/8 "2011-04-29T19:57:41Z")
> [@Gary\_T](#): > > But why? The other party has obviously already consented to having the conversation recorded, since they plan on (possibly) recording it. Does the law specifically require that they consent to **MY** recording it? WAG, you consented to their recording but did you grant them the ability to consent to your recording? IANAL but a company that later finds out you recorded them without their consent can make your life economically difficult, even if you were later found to be within your rights.