Telephone recording laws

anti-wiretapping lawlaw against tapingtelephone voice recordingtwo party consenttwo-party consent recording laws
Telephone recording laws are laws that govern the civilian recording of telephone conversations by the participants.wikipedia
40 Related Articles

Telephone tapping

wiretapwiretappingwiretaps
Recording of private conversations by government or law enforcement (wiretapping) are usually covered by distinct laws. Telephone tapping is strictly regulated in many countries, especially in all developed democracies, to safeguard the privacy of telephone users.
The telephone recording laws in most U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while 12 states require both parties to be aware.

Democracy

democraticdemocraciesdemocratically
Telephone tapping is strictly regulated in many countries, especially in all developed democracies, to safeguard the privacy of telephone users.

Privacy

privacy rightsprivateright of privacy
Telephone tapping is strictly regulated in many countries, especially in all developed democracies, to safeguard the privacy of telephone users.

Court

court of lawcourtscourts of law
Telephone tapping often must be authorized by a court, and is normally only approved when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity.

Evidence (law)

evidencerules of evidencelaw of evidence
Telephone tapping often must be authorized by a court, and is normally only approved when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity.

Crime

criminalcriminalscriminal offence
Telephone tapping often must be authorized by a court, and is normally only approved when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity.

Subversion

subversivesubversivessubversive activities
Telephone tapping often must be authorized by a court, and is normally only approved when evidence shows it is not possible to detect criminal or subversive activity in less intrusive ways; often the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity.

Germany

🇩🇪GermanGER
However, in certain jurisdictions such as Germany, criminal courts may accept illegally recorded phone calls without the other party's consent as evidence.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act

PIPAPIPEDAfederal level
In Canada, organizations subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) must comply with PIPEDA when recording calls.

Criminal Code (Canada)

Criminal CodeCanadian Criminal CodeCriminal Code of Canada
Section 183 (Part VI) of the Criminal Code also outlaws surreptitious recording of communications without consent of one of the intended recipients.

Supreme Court of Cassation (Italy)

Court of CassationSupreme Court of CassationItalian Supreme Court
According to the Supreme Court of Cassation, recorded conversations are legal and can be used as evidence in court, even if the other party is unaware of being recorded, provided that the recording party takes part of the conversation.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Regulation of Investigatory Powers ActRIPAUK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in general prohibits interception of communications by a third party, with exceptions related to government agencies.

Tort

tort lawtortstortfeasor
Under RIPA unlawful recording or monitoring of communications is a tort, allowing civil action in the courts.

Financial Services Authority

FSAFCASecurities and Investment Board
It is sometimes mandatory; from March 2009 Financial Services Authority rules required firms to record all telephone conversations and electronic communications relating to client orders and the conclusion of transactions in the equity, bond, and derivatives markets.

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme CourtUnited States Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme Court
In Rathbun v United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in regard to interstate or foreign communication that "the clear inference is that one entitled to receive the communication may use it for his own benefit or have another use it for him. The communication itself is not privileged, and one party may not force the other to secrecy merely by using a telephone. It has been conceded by those who believe the conduct here violates Section 605 [of the Federal Communication Act] that either party may record the conversation and publish it."

Title 18 of the United States Code

18 U.S.C.Title 1818 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Federal law requires that at least one party taking part in the call must be notified of the recording (18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d)).

National Do Not Call Registry

Do Not CallDo Not Call ListDo-Not-Call (DNC) lists
Telephone scammers and others intentionally violating the federal Do Not Call list may try to locate in those states, or use their area codes.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Court of AppealsCt. App.Mich. App.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in 1982 that participants in a conversation may record a discussion without getting the permission of other participants.

Supreme Court of California

California Supreme CourtSupreme CourtCal.
The California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf.

Kidnapping

kidnapkidnappedabduction
However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening kidnapping, extortion, bribery, human trafficking, or other felony violence.

Extortion

extortextortingextorted
However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening kidnapping, extortion, bribery, human trafficking, or other felony violence.

Bribery

bribebribesbribing
However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening kidnapping, extortion, bribery, human trafficking, or other felony violence.

Human trafficking

traffickingtrafficking in personstrafficked
However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening kidnapping, extortion, bribery, human trafficking, or other felony violence.

Obscenity

obsceneobscenitiesindecent
Also included in the exception is misdemeanor obscenity and threats of injury to persons or property via an electronic communication device (usually a telephone) if directed in whole or in part towards a conversation participant or family members.