4 ms·

I think it may be enough to play a beep every few seconds to indicate that the call is recorded. At least that's what a bank I used to work for would do when I

by mcbits 9y ago

I think it may be enough to play a beep every few seconds to indicate that the call is recorded. At least that's what a bank I used to work for would do when I called offices in a two-party state.

jdmichal 9y ago
First, IANAL but I would be very surprised if beeps alone would be considered a legal notification of recording. Second, those beeps probably exist to reinforce that the audio is unmolested. A beep every 5 seconds means you would have to cut audio in five-second increments, which is not likely to be convenient to whatever segment of audio you actually want to cut.
- mcbits 9y ago
  Apparently the legalese is "recorder warning tone" and it should be a 1400 Hz beep every 15 seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorder_warning_tone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorder_warning_tone I mentioned it because someone working for a big organization and making a lot of interstate calls probably hears these beeps all day and would be less likely to protest than if someone verbally announced that they're recording the call.
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    Interesting... So seeing that it's a federal standard, now I wonder whether it is sufficient notification of recording... If so, as you point out it seems like an interesting way to avoid having to announce the recording to those not knowledgeable. EDIT: I don't know how reliable this site is, but it seems to indicate the recording beep is sufficient for notification, but not sufficient for consent, which makes sense. http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/5dj81-question-recording-phone-calls-legal.html http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/5dj81-question-record...
    - mcbits 9y ago
      It looks like the beep is sufficient for recording from a one-party state calling a two-party state, since federal law supercedes the other state's law. Actual consent would be required if the recorder is in a two-party state, even if the other party is in a one-party state. But even if the recording is "technically legal" without consent, using it as evidence in the two-party state could still be problematic. So I guess it wouldn't be a good idea to rely on the beep alone.

by mcbits 9y ago

I think it may be enough to play a beep every few seconds to indicate that the call is recorded. At least that's what a bank I used to work for would do when I called offices in a two-party state.

jdmichal 9y ago

First, IANAL but I would be very surprised if beeps alone would be considered a legal notification of recording. Second, those beeps probably exist to reinforce that the audio is unmolested. A beep every 5 seconds means you would have to cut audio in five-second increments, which is not likely to be convenient to whatever segment of audio you actually want to cut.

mcbits 9y ago
Apparently the legalese is "recorder warning tone" and it should be a 1400 Hz beep every 15 seconds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorder_warning_tone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorder_warning_tone I mentioned it because someone working for a big organization and making a lot of interstate calls probably hears these beeps all day and would be less likely to protest than if someone verbally announced that they're recording the call.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  Interesting... So seeing that it's a federal standard, now I wonder whether it is sufficient notification of recording... If so, as you point out it seems like an interesting way to avoid having to announce the recording to those not knowledgeable. EDIT: I don't know how reliable this site is, but it seems to indicate the recording beep is sufficient for notification, but not sufficient for consent, which makes sense. http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/5dj81-question-recording-phone-calls-legal.html http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/5dj81-question-record...
  - mcbits 9y ago
    It looks like the beep is sufficient for recording from a one-party state calling a two-party state, since federal law supercedes the other state's law. Actual consent would be required if the recorder is in a two-party state, even if the other party is in a one-party state. But even if the recording is "technically legal" without consent, using it as evidence in the two-party state could still be problematic. So I guess it wouldn't be a good idea to rely on the beep alone.