5 ms·

couldn't you be fired for recording people without their consent?

• danso 10y ago
  It varies by U.S. state...and seems to become somewhat more complicated if callers are all in different states: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co... > Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. (Notes: (1) Illinois' two-party consent statute was held unconstitutional in 2014; (2) Hawai'i is in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place; (3) Massachusetts bans "secret" recordings rather than requiring explicit consent from all parties.). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.
  • DeadBabyOrgasm 10y ago
    I'd imagine this only applies if you keep the recording. What about hearing impaired people who might use this for accessibility purposes? One would only need to keep it for the following fractions of a second it takes to turn it into text. At that point, it turns into the legal equivalent of notes you write while on a phone call. That said, IANAL.
    • jsprogrammer 10y ago
      These laws are likely invalid. Communications networks already operate on a "record and transmit" basis. As you pointed out, the real question posed by these laws is "when must a recording be destroyed"? At the level of your personal rights, however, you have an absolute right to observe, record, copy, and display anything you are able. Personally, I feel the correct response to anyone who tells you that you cannot archive what you see and hear is laughter, followed by an explanation of their rights.
    • pc86 10y ago
      It applies if you record. Whether you keep it or for what reasons you record are irrelevant. The legal question is whether text-to-speech qualifies as a "recording" when the audio itself is not stored.
      • Spivak 10y ago
        My guess would be no, as speech-to-text is no different than having someone transcribe the conversation. If the law were as technical as you describe then VoIP calls themselves would be against the law since a person's voice is recorded, transmitted, and momentarily stored.
• curried_haskell 10y ago
  Not in Canada! As long as you're a participant in the conversation, you can legally and surreptitiously record to your heart's content.
• brohee 10y ago
  You could likely be fired for sending confidential company material to IBM. You only have their word that they don't abuse it...