3 ms·

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 reinforc

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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.

mcbits 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.