I Just Want To Argue About NOTHING...

[SCSlave]

...that has ANYTHING to do with cell phones.

This was a weird one today.

Guy comes up, I cheerfully greet him, ask what he needs help with.

SC: Do you have a cell phone that has a button you can push to record phone calls?



Me: Um..nooooo? That's illegal.
SC: (With that condescending smile they love so much) YES it is...
Me: No...it's really not. Not unless the other person knows they're being recorded.
SC: No..as long as SOMEONE knows.
Me: (to boss) Hey we can't record calls because it's illegal..right?
Boss: (gets up) NO...that IS illegal.
SC: (insistant) YES YOU CAN...
Boss: OK..so you're telling me that you can record this conversation here as long as you told Joe Bob up the mall you're doing it?
SC: YES.
Boss: (laughs) OK..well you have a good day and good luck with that.
SC: <<stands there and argues with us...even though we've totally ignored him by now>> Finally leaves.

WTF?! Why do people just want to argue? Don't they have anything better to do??

[CancelMyService]

That drives me crazy when they want to argue something that's not even close to being true, then when they realize you aren't buying it they pull the old "well I'm going to end this because you're obviously too dumb to understand it" routine. Or the "I'm not arguing with a lower life form" act. That's always fun.

[wolfie]

With recording phone calls, some jurisdictions (I believe that in the U.S. it's up to the state legislature) require all parties to the conversation to consent to the recording (so the feature in question would be illegal to use there), while in other jurisdictions it's only necessary to get consent from one party to the conversation (so the feature would be legal to use, since obviously the person making the recording is giving their consent).

What would be tricky would be a phone conversation where the person doing the recording is in a "one party" jurisdiction and the other person is in an "all parties" jurisdiction.

[Broomjockey]

What would be tricky would be a phone conversation where the person doing the recording is in a "one party" jurisdiction and the other person is in an "all parties" jurisdiction.

Actually, that one's not tricky at all. Where ever the prosecution takes place gets to use the controlling laws. Now, where it gets REALLY fun is during extradition

[Jester]

Actually, that one's not tricky at all. Where ever the prosecution takes place gets to use the controlling laws. Now, where it gets REALLY fun is during extradition

I am not sure if that is correct. I would think that the area that would have jurisdiction would be the area where the recording took place. In other words, where the recordER is, not where the recordEE is. So if the recordER is in a two party area, it would be illegal, no matter where the recordEE is. However, if the recordER was in a one party area, it would be legal.

Of course, as always, I reserve the right to be completely and horribly wrong. Especially since I am not a lawyer and don't get to play with one on tv.

[Broomjockey]

I am not sure if that is correct. I would think that the area that would have jurisdiction would be the area where the recording took place. In other words, where the recordER is, not where the recordEE is. So if the recordER is in a two party area, it would be illegal, no matter where the recordEE is. However, if the recordER was in a one party area, it would be legal.

Of course, as always, I reserve the right to be completely and horribly wrong. Especially since I am not a lawyer and don't get to play with one on tv.

See, that would almost make sense to me if not for the fact that with modern phone systems, the recording device could potentially be in another country from any participant in the conversation, somewhere where the laws say that any recording can be made without concent of either party. And then in your example, that could then be used in a different jurisdiction, because it was legal where it was made. That whole "phone tap" hubabaloo that was going on a while ago could have then been circumvented just by having the tapper sitting in China or Laos or something like that.

I too have to reserve the right to be really wrong, especially as the law often presents wonderful situations where logic has nothing to do with anything

[Emrld]

I am not sure that it is illegal - so much as it won't hold up in a court of law.

[air914]

Hmm wonder what he needed to record........

Were these laws in place with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing? I didn't think she'd be so stupid as to allow someone to record the phone calls saying the stuff she did..... but weren't they used in court? Or maybe they were just leaked to the media? Still, couldn't Linda Tripp have gotten in trouble? Or did I just totally not pay a whole lot of attention to that whole thing and I missed a bunch of stuff about recording laws?

[digilight]

IANAL but I've played one on the TV in my mind...and I watched some lawyer show once.

From my understanding you have either a two party consent (the person doing the recording has to notify you that this call may be monitored or recorded in order to take your first born and blah blah blah). then you have a one party consent (only one party has to consent, you don't have to be notified). I don't believe it matters where the recording device is in the line. You could be calling thru a VOIP proxy device out of Nigeria or using a handheld recorder on your own line, it is still based on where you the party "Consenting" is located.

[Andara Bledin]

Whether recording a call is legal or not is entirely dependant upon the locations (both) of the caller and the person being called, and the nature of the call.

In California, for instance, you are allowed to record a phone conversation as long as you declare that you are going to do so. Once the other party has the opportunity to object or disconnect, it's allowed.

Were these laws in place with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing? I didn't think she'd be so stupid as to allow someone to record the phone calls saying the stuff she did..... but weren't they used in court?

Yes, these laws were in place during the whole Lewinsky thing. No, Starr did not inform her that she was recording the conversations. Yes, that was completely illegal in her jurisdiction. Yes, that particular fact was quite conveniently ignored during the ensuing media frenzy. Yes, Starr asked leading questions. Yes, Lewinsky was stupid for telling anybody what she was up to.

^-.-^

[sms001]

WAAAAaaaay off topic...

Whether recording a call is legal or not is entirely dependant upon the locations (both) of the caller and the person being called, and the nature of the call.^-.-^

Since we've moved, we've gotten a LOT of dunning calls on our (to us) new number. Most of the time if I pick it up and chat with whoever they are nice enough to take the number off the list. Recently however (to edge closer to the topic) there have been several calls where a message is left on our answering machine. The message starts with:

"This message contains confidential financial information. If you are not (Insert previous number holder's name here.) you may not listen to this message."

hmmmmm..... seems kind of a tricky piece of law there - telling me I CAN'T listen to a message recorded on my telephone line by my answering machine

[Andara Bledin]

If any one of them tells you that they are trying to collect on a debt, take full notes, then inform them that they have to eat that debt and consider it absolved for failing to comply with regulations and that you will be looking up whoever it is to let them know.

Seriously, it is totally against the law for any company to tell anyone else that you owe money. They had to legislate it because it used to be that companies would call people at their places of employment in an effort to shame them into paying up. That's why they always say it's a "personal" or "private" issue between them and the person named.

^-.-^

[BookstoreEscapee]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but tonight's rerun of Celebrity Jeopardy had contestants from each of the Law & Order franchises (Sam Waterston, Katherine Erbe and Christopher Maloni)....

does that qualify me to answer legal questions?

[sms001]

Not that sympathetic

If any one of them tells you that they are trying to collect on a debt, take full notes, then inform them that they have to eat that debt and consider it absolved for failing to comply with regulations and that you will be looking up whoever it is to let them know.

If the previous user of the phone number wasn't getting calls from about ten different collections I might, just because I found it so unethical. But my sympathy for this deadbeat has looooong since run out. (We've had the number for coming up on a year now.)