Recording phone calls: Georgia and FCC

[mark3324]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

Georgia is a one-party consent state, and information I have read says that the recording party does NOT have to notify the other party of the recording. But I have also seen FCC information that says that at the federal level the recording party is supposed to notify the other party and there should be a recurring beep. What is the bottom line in Georgia? (Both parties are here.)

And this one is just a curiosity: If I get a call from a company who notifies me that they are recording the call, may I also record without telling them?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

Georgia is a one-party consent state, and information I have read says that the recording party does NOT have to notify the other party of the recording. But I have also seen FCC information that says that at the federal level the recording party is supposed to notify the other party and there should be a recurring beep. What is the bottom line in Georgia? (Both parties are here.)

And this one is just a curiosity: If I get a call from a company who notifies me that they are recording the call, may I also record without telling them?

It is, as a general rule, smart to notify the other party to a conversation that you will be recording the conversation - this whether the state is a one-party consent state or not. Surreptitious recording can create problems (privacy concerns, for example). And, when speaking with someone in another state that is a two-party consent state, you should always follow the laws of the state that is stricter about recording.

If someone says they will be recording a call, you should inform them that you will be doing the same (if you intend to). Just because they have your consent to record you, you still need their consent to record them.

And all recording should be done by a person who is a party to the conversation. No third party should be recording any conversations. That is considered eavesdropping and is a legal no-no.

The Digital Media Law Project has a guide to state recording laws, accessible through this link: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/state-law-recording

 

[Mark Maroon]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

And this one is just a curiosity: If I get a call from a company who notifies me that they are recording the call, may I also record without telling them?

I agree with everything that Quincy said. If you want to be 100% safe from any possible repercussion, then you should specifically ask the party that you are talking with if you can record the conversation (of course you will want to have a recording of you asking them and of their answer). Be sure to ask EACH party that you speak with (and want to record). So for instance, if you call a company and talk with the receptionist, then you need to get her permission. But if the receptionist transfers you to a sales person, then you also need to get the sales person's permission. And if the sales person transfers you to someone in the billing department, then you also need to get their permission.

On the other hand, if you don't feel that you need to be 100% safe from any possible repercussions, then you could record everything after you hear their statement that says "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance purposes." because you believe that this is a permissive statement rather than a simple declaratory statement.

 

[quincy]

... On the other hand, if you don't feel that you need to be 100% safe from any possible repercussions, then you could record everything after you hear their statement that says "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance purposes." because you believe that this is a permissive statement rather than a simple declaratory statement.

Huh?

That does not relieve you of your need to inform a party that you will be recording a call. That message only informs of the caller's possible intention to record or monitor a call. By continuing with the conversation, you are consenting to this possible monitoring or recording.

 

[Mark Maroon]

Huh?

That does not relieve you of your need to inform a party that you will be recording a call. That message only informs of the caller's possible intention to record or monitor a call. By continuing with the conversation, you are consenting to this possible monitoring or recording.

One interpretation of the statement "this call may be recorded", is that the caller is telling the called party that the caller may record the call. Another interpretation of the statement "this call may be recorded" is that the caller is telling the called party that the called party may record the call. I've never seen someone argue this in court, but I don't think the statement itself is clear on the matter. It doesn't say to the called party "you may record the call", but it also doesn't say to the called party "we may record the call". It simply says that "this call may be recorded". It doesn't say who it may be recorded by. You happen to believe it is saying that the caller may record the call, but someone else might believe that it is saying that the called party may record the call.

 

[quincy]

One interpretation of the statement "this call may be recorded", is that the caller is telling the called party that the caller may record the call. Another interpretation of the statement "this call may be recorded" is that the caller is telling the called party that the called party may record the call. I've never seen someone argue this in court, but I don't think the statement itself is clear on the matter. It doesn't say to the called party "you may record the call", but it also doesn't say to the called party "we may record the call". It simply says that "this call may be recorded". It doesn't say who it may be recorded by. You happen to believe it is saying that the caller may record the call, but someone else might believe that it is saying that the called party may record the call.

I have never heard of anyone interpreting that message in the way you have here. The "monitoring for quality assurance purposes" indicates clearly that it is the caller who may be recording or monitoring the call.

Again, the best advice is, if you intend to record a call, let the one called know that you intend to record the call.

 

[Mark Maroon]

Again, the best advice is, if you intend to record a call, let the one called know that you intend to record the call.

Of course, we agree and have both have stated that if you intend to record a call and you want to be 100% safe from any possible repercussion as to recording a call without permission, then you should let the other party to the call know that you want to record the conversation and you should get and record their permission to record the conversation (and you should do that for each party to the conversation).

I have never heard of anyone interpreting that message in the way you have here. The "monitoring for quality assurance purposes" indicates clearly that it is the caller who may be recording or monitoring the call.

With all due respect, just because you see something "clearly" doesn't make it so. In my personal opinion there is nothing clear about who may record the call from the statement "this call may be recorded". I am sure that most people don't really think much about the statement, and they just assume that it means the caller may record the conversation (especially since most people do not usually want to record calls). But some people might be more prone to want to record calls than other people, and/or they may be deeper thinkers than others, and/or they may be more literal than others, and for those reasons they might believe that the statement "this call may be recorded" is ambiguous as to who may record the call. Of course, as I cautioned, I don't know anyone who has argued this in a court, so I have no idea how a judge might rule. It's just a suggested way to look at something if you feel that you have to get out of bed (the best advice of course is to stay in bed).

 

[quincy]

... In my personal opinion there is nothing clear about who may record the call from the statement "this call may be recorded". ... I have no idea how a judge might rule. ...

With all due respect, suggesting to someone that it could be all right to record a call, when you are not clear yourself if recording would be legal or not, is probably advice better left unsaid. I suggest you stick to what you know to be true.

Our purpose here is not to drive mark3324 to a court as a test case on recording laws.

 

[Just Blue]

One interpretation of the statement "this call may be recorded", is that the caller is telling the called party that the caller may record the call. Another interpretation of the statement "this call may be recorded" is that the caller is telling the called party that the called party may record the call. I've never seen someone argue this in court, but I don't think the statement itself is clear on the matter. It doesn't say to the called party "you may record the call", but it also doesn't say to the called party "we may record the call". It simply says that "this call may be recorded". It doesn't say who it may be recorded by. You happen to believe it is saying that the caller may record the call, but someone else might believe that it is saying that the called party may record the call.

Humph...OP and you have the first user name. Goodness.

 

[Mark Maroon]

With all due respect, suggesting to someone that it could be all right to record a call, when you are not clear yourself if recording would be legal or not, is probably advice better left unsaid. I suggest you stick to what you know to be true.

Our purpose here is not to drive mark3324 to a court as a test case on recording laws.

I didn't think our purpose here was to only provide information about settled law. If that's the case, then I certainly apologize if anyone thought that I was even remotely suggesting that recording a caller who played a recording that said "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" was 100% legal. I thought that I gave my personal opinion in all of it's gory details. I specifically said that I don't know if anyone has ever "tested" this argument in court. If that "drives" mark3324 or anyone else to a court as a test case then that was their choice to be a test case. Once again, I am suggesting that to be 100% safe everyone should stay in bed and they should always ask each person who is on the phone if it's OK if they record the conversation (and get a recording of them agreeing to allow you to record the conversation). But *IF* someone feels that they absolutely have to get out of bed and *IF* someone feels that they have to record a conversation, then in their defense they might want to argue that that they believed the statement "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" was telling them that they could record the call for quality assurance purposes.

They might also argue that a corporation doesn't have "privacy rights" like individuals do, and so the corporation cannot sue them for violation of it's privacy rights. But again, if you want to be 100% safe, stay in bed and always ask other people on the phone if it's OK if you record the conversation (and get a recording of them agreeing to allow you to record the conversation). After all, nobody wants to be a Linda Rose Tripp.

 

[quincy]

... But *IF* someone feels that they absolutely have to get out of bed and *IF* someone feels that they have to record a conversation, then in their defense they might want to argue that that they believed the statement "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" was telling them that they could record the call for quality assurance purposes. ...

It is this "defense" that you offer for recording a conversation that I have a problem with, Mark Maroon.

You say that a person could always claim they misinterpreted (or, if you prefer, interpreted differently) the "this call may be monitored and recorded for quality assurance purposes" message. Using this as a defense to recording a call could potentially get the person recording the call in a whole heap of trouble.

We try to avoid getting posters in trouble here with our advice.

Other than that, I have no problem with what you wrote. In fact, your addition - to make sure each new person who comes to the phone is advised you are recording the call - was a good and important addition. It is not all that hard to tell someone you will be recording the call and it is the legally safe thing to do.

 

[realfilm]

I've recieved (and placed) calls and have been told that the call "may be recorded" and then tell them the same thing and usually either they terminate the call or I just tell them I wont talk if they are recording the call and hang up on them. Just wondered if you ever asked them to play back the recording if they actually would?

 

[swalsh411]

I fail to see how "this call may be recorded" does not constitute sufficient notification.

And there is no requirement to receive express permission that I have ever seen. A notification that it may be recorded is enough, and a party on the call doesn't like that they can hang up.

 

[quincy]

Here is another link on recording laws for your review. Please note the possible penalties for violating recording laws and, also, please note how useful these phone recordings are in court as evidence (ie, not very ).

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

 

[realfilm]

How could someone prove they were illegally recorded? If someone sued me or had me arrested because I illegally recorded them what proof would they have? Do you think I'm going to produce a recording that could send me to jail? I would doubt it.