If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com, (Curtis CCR) writes:
| Dan Lanciani wrote: | | | In article . com, | (Curtis CCR) writes: | | | Dan Lanciani wrote: | | In article | .com, | | (Curtis CCR) writes: | | [...] | | | In California, any phone call going over the public network | | | cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH | parties. | | | | [...] | | | The restrictions extend to the call center operations here too. | | | Customers hear "your call may be monitored or recorded..." The | | | montoring system records all calls on the customer service reps | | phone, | | | as well as what they are doing on their computer during the | call. | | In | | | addition to the line for call queues, there is also a line for | the | | CSR | | | to use for direct incoming calls or to make outgoing calls. | The | | | monitoring system records all calls on the CSR's phone | regardless | | of | | | what line is used. | | | | | | When recordings are reviewed by management, they are always | | reviewed by | | | two people. The privacy policy requires that as soon as they | | identify | | | anything they hear as personal or otherwise not related to | customer | | | service, they stop listening and move on. The direct line on | the | | CSR | | | phone does not have a monitoring notice so the privacy has to | be | | | extended to third party. | | | | Are you saying that they do record the direct line even though | there | | is | | no notice to the person on the other end? If that is the case, | | hasn't the | | law already been violated even if the people reviewing the tapes | try | | to | | avoid listening to "personal" content? | | | | Nope. It works out because of the way the law is written. The | | recording connection to the phone is authorized, and they don't | listen | | to personal communications. | | I'm still a little confused about this. First, just to clarify, they | do | record the direct line without notice to or consent of the person on | the | other end, right? | | Yes. It's a physical wiretap. Though multiple lines appear on the | phone, there is only one pair of wires going to it. The system | phyically taps those wires and records everything. | | The primary purpose of the tap is to record incoming call center calls | to the customer service rep. The other calls are recorded are, I guess | you could say, a by-product of the legitimate wire tap. Is the fact that the other recordings are made as a by-product of the legitimate tap dispositive of their legality? That is, if you made the exact same recordings by deliberate choice would the situation change? | No, unless the agent advises whoever he is taking to on the "direct" | line that the call may be recorded, the second party does not know. If this is acceptable, it appears to contradict your prior statement that: ``In California, any phone call going over the public network cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH parties.'' since there is an ''or'' between ''monitored'' and ''recorded''. (assuming the calls are going out over the public network) At least I think that was your statement if I'm not confusing the attributions. | So are you saying that the two-party-consent requirement | applies only to personal communications and that it is ok to record | everything | as long as you don't listen to the personal parts? | | No, I said no such thing. I didn't mean to imply that you said it; I was merely proposing the only possible way I could see reconcile your seemingly contradictory statements. I apologize for using the ``So are you saying'' structure. | The calls coming into the the customer | service agent on the call center lines have an announcement that the | call may be recorded. Yes, I understand. I am not talking about those calls. I am talking about the calls on the direct line that have no announcement and are recorded without the consent of the party on the other end. | The elements of the California wiretap law say that it's a crime to | make an unauthorized tap, or, in an unauthorized manner and without | consent of all parties, attempt to learn the contents of a confidential | communication. First, the wiretap is authorized and the employees | knows his phone is tapped. Does the fact that one party knows his phone is tapped have any bearing on the requirement that the other party consent? | Second, no attempt is made to learn the | contents of any confidential (personal) calls. I don't believe that it is plausible to equate personal and confidential in this way. Clearly it is possible to have confidential business calls. Of course, without the definition of ``confidential'' it is impossible to know what the law as you state it means. On the other hand, any definition of ``confidential'' that allows one party to the call (or even a third party) to make the determination that something is not ``confidential'' would pretty much defeat the all-party requirement. | If they come up during | a review, as soon as it is known they are no-notice calls, the playback | is stopped and the review moves to the next call. This seems a bit different from what you said before, but I'm still not completely clear on the procedure. Do they stop playing *all* calls that were made on the no-notice line or only no-notice calls where something personal/confidential came up? | Who exactly is authorized | to make the personal/non-personal distinction? | | The persons that are authorized to review calls. They don't work for | me, nor do I operate the call monitoring system. I cannot say what | position these people hold. I didn't mean the specific people at your company. I meant who in general is authorized by the law to make such determinations? | In California, am I as an | individual allowed to record all of my phone conversations without | notice to | the other party as long as I review only the non-personal parts? | | If you want to record your phone calls without giving notice, you | should consult an attorney about the legalities of it. I don't want to record my calls and I don't live in California. It was a hypothetical question intended to explore any possible distinction in the law that might give more latitude to businesses than to individuals. | As non-attorney | I would say no. I suppose you could record all of your calls without | notice, but then you couldn't allow anyone else to listen to those | recordings. Interesting. I don't think this is the case in some other all-party-consent states. | Go back to what I originally described. I have, several times. But I'm still unable to reconcile all of your statements. | The only recordings here that | are reviewed are those that come in on the CSR's call center line. | Those calls have notice to all parties that they may be recorded. Ok, I think that answers the question I raised above about whether they stop listening to all no-notice calls or only to no-notice calls where something personal/confidential comes up. However, I still believe that making the recording of the no-notice call in the first place is inconsistent with the statement: ``In California, any phone call going over the public network cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH parties.'' Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case | Fern5827 | Spanking | 8 | October 4th 05 03:43 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |