[fotbr]

Some states allow "one party consent" to recordings of communications (ie, phone calls). Extending that, as long as Company A is aware of FB's practices, then your wishes are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument that could be made.

[rsstack]

"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation."

[nerdponx]

Two-party consent is a funny thing. It's empowering to individuals in their interactions with corporations, but in this case it's clearly disempowering to individuals.

Is "asymmetric" one-party consent a thing in any jurisdiction?

[cgriswald]

One-party consent seems far more empowering to me. It lets me record any conversation I'm a party to whether the other party likes it or not.

In a two-party consent state, the corporation just has a message that the call may be monitored or recorded and me staying on the line qualifies as 'consent'. I'm not provided with an option to talk without being recorded and for many functions companies won't deal with you except through these specific phone numbers.

However, if I tell the company I want to record them, they have very little reason to humor me. In practice, this means I'm almost always being recorded anyway, but I can't generally record them back. It looks to me very much like corporations get one-party consent, and I don't.

I've heard it argued that "This call may be monitored or recorded..." can be interpreted as consent, but I'm not sure how that works out in practice, especially since I'd be recording the individual employees (who may have consented to their employer, but haven't to me).

[lotsofpulp]

> However, if I tell the company I want to record them, they have very little reason to humor me. In practice, this means I'm almost always being recorded anyway, but I can't generally record them back.

I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to record calls if a company plays that message. It’s implicit that if they are notifying you the call is being recorded, that they are also aware and agree to being recorded.

[prepend]

One tactic that seems legal is to play a similar message while the company’s robot is playing their message. Since the company doesn’t disconnect it means consent.

Not aware of this being legally tested but seems like a stupid hoop to meet the two party consent jurisdictions.

[mindslight]

The message itself ("this call may be recorded") has given you consent the record the call, without needing to play your own version. The point was that this doesn't mean the employee themselves has consented.

Then again, the caller could use similar reasoning of saying their assistant placed the call and waited on hold, and only then did they get on the line. Or really any phone conversation where a new party comes on the line after the recording has started.

I think the call center employee would have a pretty hard time arguing some expectation of privacy regarding your recording, when their employer has made it clear that the call can be recorded. I'd be interested in any precedents to the contrary though.

However, talking in terms of "consent" might just be a red herring. A company hasn't actually obtained your consent by playing a notice that they are recording the call. What they have done is destroy your expectation of privacy.

[geoduck14]

I used to support a call center. One of the things we did was monitor that the call agents gave the disclosure for each call. One sticky point was that if we had to get a 2 borrower on the line, we had to give the disclosure AGAIN.

Each person you talk to needs to hear the disclosure.

[tobylane]

The UK only requires notification from the company in a commercial call. The recipient can do so without permission.

[lotsofpulp]

Two party or all party consent puts the weaker individual at a disadvantage.

[robertlagrant]

This sounds wrong. If a large corporation wants to record me but can't because they need my consent that seems like an advantage to me.

[lotsofpulp]

Recording provides power to the weaker entity because they can expose the more powerful entity. The ability to expose is the only equalizing power a weaker entity has.

For example, an employer with power over an employee can ask the employee to do something unscrupulous without worrying about being exposed if the law forbids the employee from being able to expose the employer.

For a large corporation versus small individual, I don’t see what the small individual would ever have to lose by being recorded (or gain by not being recorded). The small individual is never going to be in a position where they can twist the large corporation’s hand into doing something wrong, and if they were, then I would say the large corporation is the weaker party in that interaction.

[robertlagrant]

Hm, I see what you mean. I worry about that - I think generally you don't record a large corporation, you record another person (or people). Those people might be in a position of authority, sure, but being able to publish highly out of context footage is potentially far more power than anyone should have used against them.

Tricky.

[hellbannedguy]

Georgia is the only state where only one person needs consent to record.

I just heard that.

[whichquestion]

This is false. There are many other one party consent states. See https://recordinglaw.com/united-states-recording-laws/one-pa... for more info.

[caymanjim]

Not so. Only 12 states require two-party consent to record conversations. Federal law is one-party. There are caveats and rules around all of it, but on a board scale, most of the country only requires single party consent.

[LinuxBender]

California is 2-party-consent [1]

[1] - https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

[philip1209]

Presumably - if states are defining 1-party vs. 2-party consent laws, then doesn't the 10th amendment imply that this matter shouldn't be handled federally?

[rossdavidh]

...unless the communications cross state lines, which in this case they mostly do.

[TrinaryWorksToo]

California is a two-party consent state for wiretapping laws.