5 ms·

> Pushing for an answer on how one of my apps can have a watch keyboard, but the other cannot, they could only "discuss via phone". What would Apple's response

> Pushing for an answer on how one of my apps can have a watch keyboard, but the other cannot, they could only "discuss via phone". What would Apple's response be if you started with "This call may be recorded"? Is recording without notice legal in any state?

ravenstine 6y ago
In California, it is.
- 333c 6y ago
  California is a two-party consent state[0], which means everyone on a phone call must agree to it being recorded before it can be recorded. In general, many more US states are one-party consent[1], which means that only one member of the conversation has to agree to the recording. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#Two-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#One-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > many more US states are two-party consent[1] ITYM "one-party" here.
    - 333c 6y ago
      I did, thanks.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
I believe they're legal in any single-party-consent state, but I honestly don't know how that plays when the other person is in an all-party-consent state.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  but if they say this call may be recorded aren't you consenting by continuing the call?
  - rbecker 6y ago
    I believe so. But one can use "By continuing this call, you consent that it may be recorded" just in case.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    When I called the electric company yesterday the first thing that was stated on the IVR was, "If you don't want this call recorded, please let the representative know." I thought that was nice. New to me.
    - pavel_lishin 6y ago
      I'm wary of the fact that it didn't actually say your phone call wouldn't be recorded.
  - Figs 6y ago
    Now, that raises an interesting question I hadn't considered before. If you call a service that has an automated call recording consent message does that consent message imply that you are also allowed to record the call with no further notice, if you so choose? Both sides know that at least one recording is being produced by continuing the call; do additional recordings require additional consent? Has this ever actually been tested in court?
jeroenhd 6y ago
From what I know, the legality if this differs between state. In some you need consent from both parties, in others only your own. Given their hesitance to official statements, I'd guess the call would be terminated immediately.
nanch 6y ago
I made https://callrec.app https://callrec.app just for that. It records calls for you and emails you the recording. I made it just for me, but it works well enough for recording outbound calls.
kmeisthax 6y ago
Limiting the question specifically to "can you record your own phone calls for your own use", and ignoring questions about what you can do with the recordings (which is where things like CCPA or GDPR would apply), there are two regimes which cover the vast majority of telecommunications law: one-party consent and two-party consent. (India doesn't allow recording at all, but that's because they're stuck in the Ma Bell era of telecom law.) One-party consent means one party - i.e., yourself - needs to consent to recording for the recording to be legal. The latter means all parties need to consent to recording. (Evidently "two-party consent" was coined before conference calls were a thing.) About three quarters of the US is one-party consent but a quarter are two-party consent. California is part of the latter group and if any party to the call has California residence, then you need consent from all parties to the call before you can record. Yes, this has gone up to California supreme court. Yes, this includes all of the FAANG companies. So you would need some kind of notification that you were recording and for the person on the other line to consent to the recording, regardless of where you live, simply because Apple employees live in California. (Depending on jurisdiction, there are exceptions for a party to a call to record the call if it has something to do with specific crimes, but "violating antitrust law" isn't one of them.)
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I don't see the Federal Supreme Court weigh in on this, and without that I don't see how California can impose it's laws on people out of state. It's no different from any other law-- take open carry gun laws as an example. A state that prohibited open carry would not be able to assign liability to someone that open carried in a state where it was legal. It really doesn't matter what the California Supreme court says, they don't have authority outside of California. I suppose they could make laws about how such recording could be used if they entered in California, but not much else.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    The problem I see is if you’re recording the call for legal reasons, you’re probably going to court in California where it wouldn’t be admissible even if they wouldn’t be able to charge you.
ineedasername 6y ago
Depends on the state. But that opens up room for some jurisdictional arbitrage: an app that routed the audio of your call to servers in a state that allowed single-party permission, and record the audio there.

ravenstine 6y ago

In California, it is.

333c 6y ago
California is a two-party consent state[0], which means everyone on a phone call must agree to it being recorded before it can be recorded. In general, many more US states are one-party consent[1], which means that only one member of the conversation has to agree to the recording. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#Two-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#One-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > many more US states are two-party consent[1] ITYM "one-party" here.
  - 333c 6y ago
    I did, thanks.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

I believe they're legal in any single-party-consent state, but I honestly don't know how that plays when the other person is in an all-party-consent state.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
but if they say this call may be recorded aren't you consenting by continuing the call?
- rbecker 6y ago
  I believe so. But one can use "By continuing this call, you consent that it may be recorded" just in case.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  When I called the electric company yesterday the first thing that was stated on the IVR was, "If you don't want this call recorded, please let the representative know." I thought that was nice. New to me.
  - pavel_lishin 6y ago
    I'm wary of the fact that it didn't actually say your phone call wouldn't be recorded.
- Figs 6y ago
  Now, that raises an interesting question I hadn't considered before. If you call a service that has an automated call recording consent message does that consent message imply that you are also allowed to record the call with no further notice, if you so choose? Both sides know that at least one recording is being produced by continuing the call; do additional recordings require additional consent? Has this ever actually been tested in court?

jeroenhd 6y ago

From what I know, the legality if this differs between state. In some you need consent from both parties, in others only your own. Given their hesitance to official statements, I'd guess the call would be terminated immediately.

nanch 6y ago

I made https://callrec.app https://callrec.app just for that. It records calls for you and emails you the recording. I made it just for me, but it works well enough for recording outbound calls.

kmeisthax 6y ago

Limiting the question specifically to "can you record your own phone calls for your own use", and ignoring questions about what you can do with the recordings (which is where things like CCPA or GDPR would apply), there are two regimes which cover the vast majority of telecommunications law: one-party consent and two-party consent. (India doesn't allow recording at all, but that's because they're stuck in the Ma Bell era of telecom law.) One-party consent means one party - i.e., yourself - needs to consent to recording for the recording to be legal. The latter means all parties need to consent to recording. (Evidently "two-party consent" was coined before conference calls were a thing.) About three quarters of the US is one-party consent but a quarter are two-party consent. California is part of the latter group and if any party to the call has California residence, then you need consent from all parties to the call before you can record. Yes, this has gone up to California supreme court. Yes, this includes all of the FAANG companies. So you would need some kind of notification that you were recording and for the person on the other line to consent to the recording, regardless of where you live, simply because Apple employees live in California. (Depending on jurisdiction, there are exceptions for a party to a call to record the call if it has something to do with specific crimes, but "violating antitrust law" isn't one of them.)

ineedasername 6y ago
I don't see the Federal Supreme Court weigh in on this, and without that I don't see how California can impose it's laws on people out of state. It's no different from any other law-- take open carry gun laws as an example. A state that prohibited open carry would not be able to assign liability to someone that open carried in a state where it was legal. It really doesn't matter what the California Supreme court says, they don't have authority outside of California. I suppose they could make laws about how such recording could be used if they entered in California, but not much else.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  The problem I see is if you’re recording the call for legal reasons, you’re probably going to court in California where it wouldn’t be admissible even if they wouldn’t be able to charge you.

ineedasername 6y ago

Depends on the state. But that opens up room for some jurisdictional arbitrage: an app that routed the audio of your call to servers in a state that allowed single-party permission, and record the audio there.