I’ll take strident as a compliment from someone who’s cowering at at the thought of someone at their phone job listening in on family secrets and gossiping about them. Don’t fret Puddin, it’ll be ok.[/QUOTE]
Family Secrets? lol.
When are people going to stop blaming others for their shortcomings?
Obviously the person didn t hit their mute button, but that s someone elses fault? What about personal responsibility! What about if they don t want people to hear what goes on in their household they take the steps (and it is as easy as one click away) to keep their private conversations private.
You know, it s alot easier in life to blame others then to take responsibility for your actions. And it s even easier to complain about it and completely forget that the entire incident is your own fault.
Yeah, and an ethical person would have taken the time to warn everyone again that any live conversation can be heard and would have had the decency to at least pretend that they hadn’t bee listening to a private conversation
This is not true, or at least not true everywhere. Several US states require both parties in a phone call to be notified before the call can be recorded. Cite.
Yes it is true. The dialers won t make the difference. In jurisdictions where there is such a law, the recording cannot be used in a courtroom. But rest assured, call centers are not going out of their way to stop the dialer from doing it s job.
The difference is whether you can use it or not. It doesn t mean the recording doesn t exist.
Now if they aren t running a full dialer, then again, that s a different scenario.
It is absolutely a breach of privacy laws to record a phone conversation if one of the participants is in Massachusetts, unless all parties are notified ahead of time. Someone who violates the law is subject to both criminal and civil penalties. Whether or not it’s actually happening is a different question.
The term “interception” means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication; provided that it shall not constitute an interception for an investigative or law enforcement officer, as defined in this section, to record or transmit a wire or oral communication if the officer is a party to such communication or has been given prior authorization to record or transmit the communication by such a party and if recorded or transmitted in the course of an investigation of a designated offense as defined herein.
…
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who—
willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such imprisonment.
…
Any aggrieved person whose oral or wire communications were intercepted, disclosed or used except as permitted or authorized by this section or whose personal or property interests or privacy were violated by means of an interception except as permitted or authorized by this section shall have a civil cause of action against any person who so intercepts, discloses or uses such communications or who so violates his personal, property or privacy interest, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person—
actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 per day for each day of violation or $1000, whichever is higher;
punitive damages; and
a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred. Good faith reliance on a warrant issued under this section shall constitute a complete defense to an action brought under this paragraph.
As I mentioned in the OP, there had been no advice from the management of this company that our conversations between calls were also open to interception. Now it might be common-knowledge for those in the industry, but I (and all of my coworkers) were blissfully unaware of this practice until the supervisor’s faux-pas last week. Now it has been brought to our attention, the mute buttons will be getting a regular work-out.
The point remains though that this information should have been made abundantly patent at the time of recruitment for all employees.