3 ms·
What is actually perfect, when the automated voice declares the call is being recorded, you don't have to do it again. You're legally allowed to record, because
by l3x4ur1n 2mo ago
What is actually perfect, when the automated voice declares the call is being recorded, you don't have to do it again. You're legally allowed to record, because both parties were informed already and agree to it.
- thehappypm 2mo agoThis may not be true in all jurisdictions
- anonymars 2mo agoExactly, that's only one-party consent
- wat10000 2mo agoLaws are different in different jurisdictions, but often the law only requires notification, not consent.
- gaudystead 2mo agoThe operators of the phone system are consenting to the call being recorded by informing you that the call is being recorded. You are consenting to the call being recorded by continuing with the call. How is that not two party consent?
- wila 2mo agoIt's not a consent, because the options are "Yes" and "Yes", you cannot opt out unless you quit the call.
- anonymars 2mo agoI mixed it up and GP is right. But you are also right (which illustrates the point GGP was making) If you and I are in a phone call (the target of the phone call located in a one-party consent jurisdiction), I can record it or you can record it without telling the other: that's one-party consent, because one of the parties of the call consents to it At first glance that may sound pointless, but it means a third party outside the call (e.g. phone company) could not record it without one of us consenting By notifying that the call is being recorded, that now can create two-party consent because you are still on the line (and thus implicitly agree to the recording, but as you and GGP point out that's not always considered consent enough) -- one-party consent would have been if the company on the other side of the line simply recorded the call without telling you
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]