I had to buy a suction cup recording attachment for our phone twenty years ago. We were getting obscene prank calls. I recall the literature from Radio Shack emphasized it required both parties permission to legally record the conversation. I used it anyway since the other party was only using vulgarities and hanging up.
Theres been two recent cases in the news where a highly emotional private conversation was taped and released to the press. Causing considerable embarrassment and punishment. The Clippers owner is the most current case. Dog the Bounty Hunter had a similar recording a couple years ago. He was arguing with his adult son about drug use and Dog felt the son’s gf was encouraging it. He also made racial comments about the gf and the son released the recording to the press. Public outrage resulted in A&E cancelling his top rated show.
Since recording is so easy these days with modern smart phones and an App. A modern legal clarification would be quite helpful and informative.
Are there any legal restrictions on secretly recording private conversations?
Is recording a phone conversation different?
What is the legal status of a voice mail or message on an answering machine?
The status depends on the jurisdiction. Some states in the US are two-party states, where both parties must be aware recording is happening. Some are one-party states, where only one of the parties must be aware that a recording is happening.
Even in a two-party state, I would think that by leaving a message you are consenting to the recording, and would have no grounds to complain if someone shared that recording with others. I’ve never seen a case challenging it, although it’s not unheard of to see voice mails used as evidence (against the party leaving the message).
I vaguely thought the old Telecommunications Act regulated phone recordings? IANL so, that’s just based on 20 year old memories from when I bought that suction cup from Radio Shack. The Act was reformed in 1996 anyway.
It would be wise for everyone to know if they are in a two party consent state. I found this Wikipedia article since posting my OP. (the search term two party state found it). Interesting how different the US is in protecting privacy as compared to other Democracies. I’m a little surprised only 12 states protect privacy.
Thank you for the answer. I was stuck trying to Google until the phrase two party state was posted.
(a) I call my bank, or insurance company, or the police department, or the DMV, or just about any place. Before I am connected to a live person, I hear a recording saying “This call may be recorded.” Presumably, they are advising me that they may record the conversation; if I remain on the line, I’ve consented to that.
But do I, the caller, also then have the right to record the conversation? After all, the recorded message said “This call may be recorded.” I can easily interpret that to mean they are giving me permission to record the call as well. Has this ever been tested?
(b) Does an automated or robotic machine have any rights? If I call any such number and I get to listen to some robotic device talking at me, do I have the unilateral right to record it? How many “parties” does such a conversation have? I would argue that a robot isn’t a party, and in such a call, I am the only party, and as such, I can choose unilaterally to record the call. Has this ever been tested?
Well, I don’t really know, as I know that I’m in a state where only one party needs to know. I would assume that if somebody says “this call may be recorded” that they also know, so it would be okay. I mean, if you are being recorded, it’s only reasonable that you can make a recording for your own records.
Oddly, most of the calls that tell me the call may be recorded end up being only a series of beeps. At least on my end.
In addition to Sterling and Dog there have been recent cases of politicians being recorded that made some news. The one that I recall happened in Florida I think. Seems like it was clearly illegal and another politician helped disseminate it which got him in a bit of trouble (but not much).
Oddly enough, the some web phone technology works, every phone call is/may be recorded, at least temporarily. The voice call is stored as an audio file (mp3? couldn’t find out) before being streamed to my phone/tablet, if I don’t answer, the phone call is available on our company server for a while (equivalent of voice mail I guess).
I’m assuming, but I don’t know, that the temporary files being created are deleted after use.
It seems like he was actually wiretapping phone calls between other people not involving himself. The OP is asking about recording calls between himself and someone else.
That sounds like it is the woman’s lawyer…not Sterling’s
from cite:
An attorney for V. Stiviano, the woman at the center of the Donald Sterling scandal, said she had permission to record the Clipper’s owner and doesn’t know who leaked the tape to TMZ.
Calabasas lawyer Mac Nehoray declined to state the purpose of the recording, but said it was “by mutual agreement.”
“My client is devastated that this got out,” he said, adding that he and Stiviano “have an idea” who released it. He declined to identify that person.
It is in Stiviano’s best interest to say Stirling was aware he was being recorded. It is in TMZ’s best interest to say that Stirling was aware he was being recorded. Which makes me a little leery of believing it without proof. But it could very well be the truth. Nixon knew he was being recorded and it didn’t stop him from saying what he said.
I didn’t realize this was an hour long recording. I wonder what the conversation was leading up to Sterling’s racist rant? It would be interesting to know if the gold digger had manipulated an 80 year old into saying what he did.
When I originally heard the released snippet, I suspected from Sterling’s speech that Sterling suffered from oldtymers disease or had previously suffered a stroke. His part of the conversation seemed to be a little bit addled (as well as racist) but it wasn’t clear why.
I’m not sure what the legal status of the Sterling/gold digger conversation is but the ex-Mrs Sterling is suing the gold digger and ex-Mrs Sterling might have access (for revenge purposes) to Sterling’s $billion to make Ms gold digger’s life a living/legal hell. Plus the additional billion that Sterling could get “IF” Sterling ever decides to sell the Clippers.
I had a total scumbag bill collector harassing me for over a year about a bad debt that allegedly belonged to a family member. Nothing would get rid of him. One day he called to harass me and when he gave the “this call may be recorded for quality assurance” disclaimer I had a lightbulb turn on.
“THIS call?! I’ve been recording ALL of them!”
Hilarity ensued.
I offered to email the (non-existent) recordings to the FTC, FCC, and my local Attorney General’s office to settle our difference of opinion on whether or not his disclaimer allowed me to record. He flipped out, cussed me out, hung up, and I got an official looking letter from his company stating that I was to immediately discontinue calling their company with intent to threaten, harass, intimidate, annoy, and illegally wiretap their customer service agents.
When I first heard the recording, it was so clear I just assumed it was a face-to-face conversation, but everyone in this thread is talking about a phone conversation. Which is the case here? Was this conversation on the phone or not? And if not, then do any of these laws apply? It’s generally legal for me to secretly record conversations I have in person, isn’t it?