Discussion in 'Android Devices' started by datbomb, Jan 19, 2009.
hello guys, is it possible to recorder your phone conversations?
If there is a way be advised that it is not legal to record phone calls without telling the other person that you are doing it.
Google the federal and your state laws regarding this before you record a phone call.
I remember seeing a application on the G1 that was able to do a bunch of sneaky things: Record phone calls, make your caller ID number appear different, ect. I forgot the name of it but its def in the apps. I remember it was NOT free, either.
I thought phone calls where legal to record as long as one person in the speaking party was aware of it...I dunno..
It depends on what state you and the other person is in.
You need to check the laws for your state and the state the other person is in. Also there are Federal laws regarding wire tapping.
We all know that making or getting a call is not wire-tapping .... so no worries on that account regardless of where the call orginates..
Recording of a telephone coversation is wire tapping.
No it is Not ... I quess you are a communications lawyer ....
Wire-Tapping is a third party activity ... a caller or called party has no reason to tap their own line ... to gain knowledge ... by your thoughts... it would follow that you answering message machine (or voice mail The calling party surely knows they are leaving a recorded message ) is wire-tapping ...
The Case of Monica Lewinsky and her friend (Linda Tripp) had recorded conversations that were held to be admissable ... be cause ONE party was aware ... (in DC and I believe VA) this is the Law ... but can definately vary from state to state....
Recorded conversations and notes of those conversations:
Some of Ms. Lewinsky's statements about the relationship were contemporaneously memorialized. These include deleted email recovered from her home computer and her Pentagon computer, email messages retained by two of the recipients, tape recordings of some of Ms. Lewinsky's conversations with Ms. Tripp, and notes taken by Ms. Tripp during some of their conversations. The Tripp notes, which have been extensively corroborated, refer specifically to places, dates, and times of physical contacts between the President and Ms. Lewinsky.(13)
footnote from GrandJury Testimony :
(13.) Ms. Tripp testified that she took notes on two occasions. Tripp 6/30/98 GJ at 141-42; Tripp 7/7/98 GJ at 153-54; Tripp 7/16/98 GJ at 112-13.
Legal Definiton of :
Eavesdropping on private conversations by connecting listening equipment to a telephone line. To be legal, wire tapping must be authorized by a search warrant or court order.
Topic Criminal Law :
The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:
the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or
the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued.
This is an issue that came up again after 911 and the invasion of privacy by the Bush Administration not getting prior Search Warrants from a special court...
======================= Eavesdropping ==========================
Definition of Eavesdropping:
Listening to conversations or observing conduct which is meant to be private, typically by using devices that amplify sound or light, such as stethoscopes or binoculars. The term comes from the common law offense of listening to private conversations by crouching under the windows or eaves of a house. Nowadays, eavesdropping includes using electronic equipment to intercept telephone or other wire communications, or radio equipment to intercept broadcast communications. Generally, the term "eavesdropping" is used when the activity is not legally authorized by a search warrant or court order; and the term "surveillance" is used when the activity is permitted by law. Compare electronic surveillance.
So recording your own converstions in almost all jurisdictions is admissable ...
If you have ever watched any of the TV court programs they are allowed under law to use their recordings voice and text ... and as long as one of the parties is aware then it is not wire-tapping or eavesdropping ...
Federal court cancels Patriot Act's wiretap, gag orders
By Wilson P. Dizard IIISep 06, 2007
A federal district court today struck down the Patriot Act's provisions that allow the Justice Department and the FBI to eavesdrop on telecommunications and Internet traffic without obtaining court approval, and to impose perpetual secrecy about the very existence of National Security Letter (NSL) wiretaps.
NSL require a special warrant from A FISA court ... they thing that Bush Administration didnt think they were required to do ...
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in John Doe [and others] v. Alberto Gonzales [and others] that effectively canceled the power of Justice and the FBI to issue NSLs and to impose gag orders that prevent recipients of the wiretap demands from revealing the orders' existence.
The decision in Doe v. Gonzalez severely crimps the broad telecommunications monitoring powers that Congress attempted to give to Justice in late 2001 in a bid to prevent terrorist attacks. The decision could have consequences for law enforcement and intelligence monitoring and processing of various kinds of telecommunications data streams, signaling information and content, which are subject to extensive data mining analysis.
The NSL gag orders prevent the recipients of the orders from disclosing the wiretap orders even to their closest family members.
Judge Victor Marrero stayed the enforcement of the ruling for 90 days to allow the government time to appeal the decision or to maintain the secret status of any information covered by the decision.
Marrero ruled that Doe, the sobriquet of an Internet Service Provider that had received an NSL, would not be bound by the gag order provisions of the Patriot Act. During the lengthy process of the case, Justice and the FBI had dropped their original demands for the Internet records they originally sought from Doe. Doe has been forced to use a pseudonym throughout the case to avoid potential incarceration as provided by the Patriot Act for persons who divulge the fact that they have received NSLs.
Telephone tapping (or wire tapping/wiretapping in the US) is the monitoring of telephone and Internet conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The telephone tap or wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was applied to the wires of the telephone line being monitored and drew off or tapped a small amount of the electrical signal carrying the conversation to gain knowledge of the information it contains. Legalized wiretapping by police or other recognized perental is otherwise known as lawful interception. Active Passive wiretapping attempts only to observe the flow, and wiretapping attempts to alter the data or otherwise affect the flow of data.
Main article: Telephone recording laws
Telephone tapping is officially strictly controlled in many countries to safeguard an individual's privacy; this is the case in all developed democracies. In theory, telephone tapping often needs to be authorized by a court, and is, again in theory, 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. In many jurisdictions however, permission for telephone tapping is easily obtained on a routine basis without further investigation by the court or other entity granting such permission. Illegal or unauthorised telephone tapping is often a criminal offense. However, in certain jurisdictions such as Germany, courts will accept illegally recorded phone calls without the other party's consent as evidence .
In the United States, federal agencies may be authorized to engage in wiretaps by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court with secret proceedings, in certain circumstances.
Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However the Telephone recording laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while other states require both parties to be aware. It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that the conversation is being recorded.
State Laws (Table)
While the U.S. federal law only requires one-party consent, many states have accepted different laws. In some states all parties must give their consent or at least be notified that the call is about to be recorded (with necessary opt-out option: if you don’t like them to record the call, you can ask them to stop recording). There also was a case law decision from many years ago (the 1950's) that went to the Supreme Court and affirmed that the federal law does not supersede state authority/statutes unless the call or the tap crosses state lines – that is why each state went ahead and established their own guideline/statute.
States Requiring One Party Notification
District Of Columbia
States Requiring Two Party Notification
LOL @ overkill of information.
Sorry ... but the statement of recording is wire-tapping was too much to let pass ... especially as misinformation ... so the info was trying to cover all bases for the person who first wanted informed information ...
Try to keep most responses short and to the point ...
... and forgot the person might not be old enough to know Monica ...
...remember it was Bob Dylan who sang blowing in the wind not Monica Lewinsky
lol all i wanted was a simple way to record a conversation, but thanks for all the info. the reason i ask is because i'm trying to record phone calls from a collections agency. i know they're recording the conversation, so why shouldn't i?
if nothing else put the call on speaker phone and record with any other sound recorder ....
yeah wouldn't it be amazing if people actually answered the original questions???
Or was accurate with the answers they give ..
Btw, that App I was referring to is called: SpoofApp
I know nothing about it other then its desription on my G1 marketplace Apps list. Says you can record calls, change your voice and even change your caller ID number.
Maybe somebody wants to download it and try it. i dont feel like it. lol
My wife conducts interviews on her G1 and I've tried a couple different apps for this purpose. Neither of them work 100%. Here's what I've tried:
Livo Recorder by Mach 1 Mobile: Records the conversation, but the person on the other end is very faint, I had to use audio editing software to turn it up and even then it didn't sound too good.
Phone Recorder by Mamoru Tokashiki: Records both ends of the conversation fine, but the person on the other end will get an annoying echo.
The legality of call recording varies from state to state, some states only require one party on the call to be aware that the call is being recorded (if you're recording your own calls, that one party is you, so you don't need to make the other person aware), some require both parties be aware, so you'd need to ask the other person's permission.
Oh, would be cool if there was an app that did it without any downsides.
I'm swedish so here it's perfectly legal as long as one party knows it. And i do so..
I find it hilarious that the SpoofApp guys think people are really going to buy their no-name calling cards just to change their voice or do other worthless, basic functions.
I know alot has to do with wire tapping but what if you have a third party wiretap their phone, or your phone? I am sure if someone familiar with loopholes disected the patriot act they could make a case. I mean it desolved freedoms with intent to spy on potential terrorists but if we give up freedoms we had no say in then why shouldnt americans have the right to record a conversation either directly or through a third party to prove a case.
if a case had to do with a giant corporation and your average Joe citizen the corporation would have all the rights whether they had te taps and the citizen would be screwed.
hence the importance of americans being more involved with politics,and government. The sham of protecting us is ridiculous when we give up our freedom in which this country was founded on.
I can only imagine how crazy technology is now, I have worked for 2 separate telecom companies that have technology that they can QA, or market via trigger words, or trends via these words to their benefit. Now if the telecom companies like Timewarner Cable, Comcast, DirecTV, DishNetwork, etc. have this technology it is a very uncomfortable thought on what our government posesses, what it is used for, and who regulates the individuals who use these.
Sorry if I went off topic a little...
Who cares as long as you're not caught
In ohio, only one party needs to know about the recording, AKA the person calling the other.
I am a physician who often has to provide medical advice over the phone. Being able to prove what I've told patients and emergency room doctors has been incredibly helpful ofer the years. (Yes, it's perfectly legal to record one's own conversations in my state, and I've even been able to enter such a recording in court.) I've been using a Palm Treo because it has an app that does this perfectly, but it's really old technology, and I'd love to get the Droid. (The only reason I've kept the Treo is this one app.)
So if anyone knows of an app for this (on any modern phone) please let me know.
Try the Market app "vRecorder".
A post on androlib.com says vRecorder doesn't work on the Droid. Do you have any experience with that?