Is It Illegal To Post a Recorded Conversation On Internet?

[JohnGalt]

I reside in the State of Georgia.

From what I understand, as long as one party to the conversation is aware the conversation is being recorded, it is LEGAL to record conversations without revealing it to the other person.

I am in the middle of a dispute with a mechanic and unfortunately I neither requested a written estimate nor did I provide written authorization to complete work on my car. As such, we only have a verbal agreement.

I consented to $6,500 in repairs to my car. He charged me $16,700. As soon as I realized this was likely to go to court, I recorded face-to-face conversations with him, which largely indicate he did not request authorization for this work.

I would like to share my experience with this repair shop in a WebForum where people exchange information about their experience with different vendors, how to repair their car, etc. and INCLUDE these recordings to substantiate my claims.

Is it against the law to do so? Could you please let me know, if it's available, the portion of the Code that covers this or a relevant case?

Any assistance you can offer would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks,
John

 

[Some Random Guy]

And why would you be inviting legal scrutiny of your actions when you have a court case to prepare for?

When big companies are involved in a lawsuit and reporters come up to them they tend to say "No comment". That's because they are smart enough not to screw up their case with comments that bring them no profit.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I reside in the State of Georgia.

From what I understand, as long as one party to the conversation is aware the conversation is being recorded, it is LEGAL to record conversations without revealing it to the other person.

I am in the middle of a dispute with a mechanic and unfortunately I neither requested a written estimate nor did I provide written authorization to complete work on my car. As such, we only have a verbal agreement.

I consented to $6,500 in repairs to my car. He charged me $16,700. As soon as I realized this was likely to go to court, I recorded face-to-face conversations with him, which largely indicate he did not request authorization for this work.

I would like to share my experience with this repair shop in a WebForum where people exchange information about their experience with different vendors, how to repair their car, etc. and INCLUDE these recordings to substantiate my claims.

Is it against the law to do so? Could you please let me know, if it's available, the portion of the Code that covers this or a relevant case?

Any assistance you can offer would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks,
John

Please do post this recording and be sure to have a copy available to the mechanic's attorney during discovery. The $16,000 will seem like chicken feed while you are sitting in jail.

 

[JohnGalt]

Umm... So posting it isn't such a good idea...

Okay, all points well taken. I should shut up and get to work on my trial...

However, BelizeBreeze's comments are completely lost on me:

How am I going to jail for posting a recording which I had every legal right to record? What criminal statutes am I violating that warrant *me* sitting in jail for warning others about this crooked mechanic who has exploited not only me, but now I have identified another victim who was taken for $10k+ by the same mechanic?

I was only concerned about civil liability, but if I am understanding you correctly (and I may well have misunderstood your response) I need to be concerned about criminal liability as well?!!

If so, please cite the relevant statute(s) or case law that supports what you are asserting... Freedom of speech is a constitutional right; the ultimate defense to libel or slander is the truth; I can't see how posting a recorded message constitutes fraudulent mispresentation (and if it did, isn't that civil?)...

I'm not a lawyer, nor did I attend law school or pass any bar exam... so please excuse my ignorance.

Many thanks,
John
[email protected]

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Okay, all points well taken. I should shut up and get to work on my trial...

The best advice you could have received.

However, BelizeBreeze's comments are completely lost on me:

Georgia Electronic Invasion of Privacy Statute, O.C.G.A. §16-11-60 et seq

How am I going to jail for posting a recording which I had every legal right to record? What criminal statutes am I violating that warrant *me* sitting in jail for warning others about this crooked mechanic who has exploited not only me, but now I have identified another victim who was taken for $10k+ by the same mechanic?

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, U.S.C.A. 18 § 2511 et seq

I was only concerned about civil liability, but if I am understanding you correctly (and I may well have misunderstood your response) I need to be concerned about criminal liability as well?!!

see above.

 

[JohnGalt]

Is statute applicable for public conversations?

O.C.G.A. 16-9, parts 60-65 are related to conversations that "occur in any private place and out of public view." A majority of these recorded conversations occurred in a parking lot, within hearing distance from the street. Those portions of the conversation that were indoors, where in the waiting area for customers, during normal business hours, where for brief periods customers were present.

What am I missing? I know it's something, just don't know what it is!

Many thanks,
John

 

[JohnGalt]

So I guess the statute(s) cited were *not* applicable to my case...

Disappointing no additional response. Ask someone to back up what they are stating, research what is provided, find out it isn't applicable (at least on the surface), ask questions to confirm, and no answer...

As my late uncle used to to say, "You get what your pay for ... IF you're LUCKY!!"

Suppose this place is no different.

What a shame...

 

[JohnGalt]

Beware of Users 'Posing' as Being 'Authoritative'

This is amazing... Still no response.

SIMPLY PUT, BEWARE OF WHAT SOME OF THESE CLOWNS WHO RIDICULE OTHERS SEEKING HELP BUT DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I thought I would get some legal advice and instead wasted my time...

I advise others relying on whatever advice these cynical, arrogant, pompous, and many times ignorant people are offering to CHECK THE FACTS. Do not rely on the advice found here. It isn't worth your time...

Best of luck. And my apologies to the few somewhere on this site who are truly trying to help. Generalizations are dangerous, but at times appropriate. This is one of them...
John

 

[Zigner]

This is amazing... Still no response.

SIMPLY PUT, BEWARE OF WHAT SOME OF THESE CLOWNS WHO RIDICULE OTHERS SEEKING HELP BUT DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I thought I would get some legal advice and instead wasted my time...

I advise others relying on whatever advice these cynical, arrogant, pompous, and many times ignorant people are offering to CHECK THE FACTS. Do not rely on the advice found here. It isn't worth your time...

Best of luck. And my apologies to the few somewhere on this site who are truly trying to help. Generalizations are dangerous, but at times appropriate. This is one of them...
John

You did receive legal advice. You can choose to do what you want with it. Obviously, others have given up on helping...glad you enjoyed your stay!

 

[Just Blue]

This is amazing... Still no response.

SIMPLY PUT, BEWARE OF WHAT SOME OF THESE CLOWNS WHO RIDICULE OTHERS SEEKING HELP BUT DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I thought I would get some legal advice and instead wasted my time...

I advise others relying on whatever advice these cynical, arrogant, pompous, and many times ignorant people are offering to CHECK THE FACTS. Do not rely on the advice found here. It isn't worth your time...

Best of luck. And my apologies to the few somewhere on this site who are truly trying to help. Generalizations are dangerous, but at times appropriate. This is one of them...
John

Your legal questions were answered...

BTW...The ATTORNEY that answered your questions volunteers here...He is under no obligation to hold you damned hand while explaining how posting a recorded conversation on the INTERNET would violate Federal law...geesh...even an idiot should know that one...

 

[JohnGalt]

Do you even read what people type before responding?

Here was the question posed, and if someone who has actually read the Code could reply it would be appreciated.

Pompous, ignorant members who don't read the question posed and cannot back up their assertions with FACT need not respond. The Code cited is very clearly dealing private conversations not in public. The reasonable expectation of privacy, I believe, is a key element here. That is not the case in my situation.

O.C.G.A. 16-9, parts 60-65 are related to conversations that "occur in any private place and out of public view." A majority of these recorded conversations occurred in a parking lot, within hearing distance from the street. Those portions of the conversation that were indoors, where in the waiting area for customers, during normal business hours, where for brief periods customers were present.

A competent attorney should better understand the circumstances of the situation before making a recommendation - which very well could do more harm that good. I'm an M.D. and if I was volunteering at a similar site for medical advice, I would not recommend taking penicillin before finding out if the patient was allergic to it. No need for any post-graduate education to understand that - it's just common sense.

And just because someone presumably went to law school and is a volunteer does not exempt them from responsibility - at least a moral or ethical one - for giving advice.

What do they call the person who is last in their class in Medical School? Doctor.

Same applies to an attorney.

And you are correct, my legal question was answered: INCORRECTLY.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Here was the question posed, and if someone who has actually read the Code could reply it would be appreciated.

Pompous, ignorant members who don't read the question posed and cannot back up their assertions with FACT need not respond. The Code cited is very clearly dealing private conversations not in public. The reasonable expectation of privacy, I believe, is a key element here. That is not the case in my situation.

O.C.G.A. 16-9, parts 60-65 are related to conversations that "occur in any private place and out of public view." A majority of these recorded conversations occurred in a parking lot, within hearing distance from the street. Those portions of the conversation that were indoors, where in the waiting area for customers, during normal business hours, where for brief periods customers were present.

A competent attorney should better understand the circumstances of the situation before making a recommendation - which very well could do more harm that good. I'm an M.D. and if I was volunteering at a similar site for medical advice, I would not recommend taking penicillin before finding out if the patient was allergic to it. No need for any post-graduate education to understand that - it's just common sense.

And just because someone presumably went to law school and is a volunteer does not exempt them from responsibility - at least a moral or ethical one - for giving advice.

What do they call the person who is last in their class in Medical School? Doctor.

Same applies to an attorney.

And you are correct, my legal question was answered: INCORRECTLY.

Please feel free to ignore all advice you have been given. Including the admonisment of the judge in your case when the recording is not admitted into evidence.

 

[JohnGalt]

You moron...

According to Title 16, Chapter 11, Section 66(a) "Nothing...shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent tot such interception."

The controlling authority in this Circuit on the authentication of tapes is United States v. Biggins, 551 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1977). As long as the proper foundation is established, I will *not* be at the receiving end of a judge's admonishment (it is not called an "admonisment ," you arrogant moron).

Again, I'm not the one who is an attorney here; however, it appears I am the only one willing to discuss and debate legal issues using the Code and Case Law...

 

[breckster]

Do whatever you want...but please tell me exactly why you are here... You, a legal idiot, are flinging poo at a very knowledgeable attorney who has given you valid advice.

Most people come to this board for legal advice (I've lurked here before and found some great answers without having to ask my own specific question). You should thank these people for saving you time and money, IMO. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.

 

[Zigner]

Most people come to this board for legal advice (I've lurked here before and found some great answers without having to ask my own specific question). You should thank these people for saving you time and money, IMO. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.

I'm sure you meant this for our Original Poster - right?