3 ms·
This comment glosses over the fact that most US states are one-party consent states not requiring notifying the other party that a telephone call is being recor
by tedmiston 9y ago
This comment glosses over the fact that most US states are one-party consent states not requiring notifying the other party that a telephone call is being recorded.
From your source:
> States that currently require that all parties consent to the recording include: California,[21] Connecticut,[22] Florida,[23] Hawaii (in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place),[22] Illinois (debated, see next section), Maryland,[24] Massachusetts[22] (only "secret" recordings are banned, but is the only state without a "public location" exception),[25] Montana (requires notification only),[26] Nevada,[27] New Hampshire,[28] Pennsylvania,[29] and Washington (however, section 3 of the Washington law states that permission is given if any of the parties announces that they will be recording the call in a reasonable manner if the recording contains that announcement).[30]
- mark212 9y agoThis is not accurate. California makes it illegal to record "confidential" communications, which is sometimes called "two party consent," but that shouldn't be interpreted to mean that affirmative consent is required. Notice that the call may be recorded defeats any presumption of confidentiality and makes it permissible for any party to record the conversation. (I am a lawyer and have litigated these cases. But I'm not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.)
- tedmiston 9y agoI'm not seeing the claims that you are refuting about California in the quoted text. My point was just to illustrate that most states are not two party consent.