 MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | reply to quetwo
Re: The laws... I don't think that's accurate.
If the other party denies that, you can still record it because you have your own authorization. As long as 1 party authorizes it, it's fine. It's not that if anybody refuses that you can't record it.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB] |
|
| That is 100% correct. It means a third party cannot record a 2 party call, i.e the cops without a warrant.
Depending on where the TWC call center is, the rep may have been correct, although the customer could also refuse to be recorded, but then they would not be able to speak to a CSR. Catch 22 |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| If you call a number, and you get a message like "calls recorded" before the rep answers, you can record that call because they are. They have given you notice and that notice also goes for them.
Just be sure you record the message "calls recorded" and you do not have to notify the rep after that, they know their calls are recorded. |
|
|
|
 quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | reply to MxxCon
The law, as according to the USC 47, Chapter 9 Subchapter I, if you wish to opt-out you can, even in a 1-party state. In that case, recording needs top stop at that point. You then always have the choice to hang-up if you need to record the conversation.
The tricky thing is you don't know where the call center is. It may be in a two-party state, in which case you NEED to have consent in order to record. A message when you call into the call center can make explicit the requirement to consent to recording to continue, but either party can opt-out at any time, and at that point the recording needs to stop. Many times to opt-out you need to hang up and communicate using a different method. |
|
CXM_Splicera more sensible viewPremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to MxxCon
said by MxxCon:I don't think that's accurate.
It is accurate.
In a one party state, only one person needs to give permission to record the conversation. Since I am calling the Service Center and I give myself permission to record the conversation, I do not have to inform the rep that it is being recorded.
In a two (or all) party state, all people participating in the conversation must give consent for the recording to be legal. Once everyone has consented, it makes no difference who records it, the permission to record is already there.
If a person in a one party state records a conversation with someone in a two party state without notifying them, the recording is legal and admissible as evidence in a court in the one party state. It would be up to the judge in a two party state if he/she will allow or deny it as evidence.
Either way, since the Service Center is informing all parties that the call is being recorded, you may record it without further mention or permission in either type of state. |
|
| reply to MxxCon
the OP is correct. Ohio is a one party state and the Ohio law even defines the ONE person as making or receiving the call. That person does not have to say anything. |
|
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | said by TBusiness:the OP is correct. Ohio is a one party state and the Ohio law even defines the ONE person as making or receiving the call. That person does not have to say anything.
That was not the point of my reply
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB] |
|
 davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC | reply to CXM_Splicer
CXM_Splicer gets a gold star. Because TWC has a "calls may be recorded for quality and training purposes" announcement in their automated attendant, you do NOT need to ask the rep for their permission to record the call. This is called implied consent. TWC is telling you that it may record the call, thus if you wish, you may also record the call. Because TWC is doing it ahead of the actual connection to an agent, the announcement is considered binding wherever the agent is located as the HQ location approved consent.
}Davoice |
|
