Regarding the use of call recorders

[Sean]

Hey friends,

With @confuseddude recent post, I’ve been hearing some talk about the use of call recorders so wanted to address the topic directly.

Currently, California is a two party consent state. That means that both parties need to consent to having any sort of call or anything recorded. Andy did it absolutely right. He asked if it was okay to record and Noah said okay. Going forward, until any sort of official word is given giving blanket authorization, we must follow California state laws above all.

So call recorders are cool to install and use. But if anyone ever contacts you, Lust or otherwise, ask if it’s okay to record before doing so. Any recording that is posted that does not contain permission from the other party will be deleted. Noah gave his consent, it’s highly likely that others would as well. If they don’t, then you know that it’s going explicitly against their will to be recorded and would be a bad idea to do so.

[Anonymous]

The above is the exact reason why I won’t release the Michelle meeting.

I merely used it to transcribe.

[Kevin Hsu]

Glad this was mentioned. Video and photo is okay though, AFAIK.

[Kortney]

This is good information, thank you for it.

[Hannah Schenck]

Thank you @thegilded for posting this! It will probably be considered more and taken seriously now that it has come from a MOD

[Maranda]

Thanks for the reminder, @thegilded.

Does anyone know how two-party consent laws work if one of the parties is in a one-party consent jurisdiction? Do you still need both parties’ permission to record?

[Sean]

@izryn – Hefferman v. Hashampour and Pendell v. AMS/Oil are two separate cases that both asked this same question and came to two different answers. Technically federal law only requires one party consent, but that’s by no means safe. Seems to be a case by case basis.

Lust Law, however, is 100% All-party consent needed for any situation in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy

[Kimberly Stewart]

I like this turn of phrase @thegilded… “Lust Law.” Not only is it catchy, but also way more straightforward than U.S. Federal law. Having worked for the California courts as well as the California Department of Justice, our rule of thumb was to err on the side of the more stringent rule. For example, if CA is a two-party consent state, while Illinois is a one-party consent state, we’d err on the side of Illinois’ law because no one wants to end up in a federal court fighting over such matters. Then again, this is also often a case of what people don’t know won’t hurt them. If you discreetly record something for your own private review alone, with no nefarious intent or action, then it’s *probably* no harm no foul.

[Maranda]

Got it, @thegilded. Thanks!

@electrichippo Do you mean you’d err on the side on California law, since two-party is stricter than one-party?

[Kimberly Stewart]

Yes! Sorry and thank you for catching my misspeak @izryn… Err on the side of the more stringent law.

[Author]

Posts