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.

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? 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? Who exactly is authorized
to make the personal/non-personal distinction? 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?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Sorry, if some duplication of previous post is included here.

There is a conflict of laws.
Mother listening to her child on the phone.
She overhead the friend or her was going to commit a crime.
By law (unless it your spouse) she has to report it or she would be
commenting a crime.

Other the mater of the State Law. Maybe she did violated here privacy
rights.

However, the State forgot to go by Federal Wiretapping Laws.
As long as one person is aware you are allowed to tape the
conversation. Just tell your kids. That you conversations will be
taped or listen too.

Federal Laws always overrides State Laws.

For your parents who don‘t allow kids the use the phone. Tell them
they can’t use the phone unless it is an emergency.


Greg R

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.

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.

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. The calls coming into the the customer
service agent on the call center lines have an announcement that the
call may be recorded.

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. Second, no attempt is made to learn the
contents of any confidential (personal) calls. 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.

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.

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. 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.

Go back to what I originally described. 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.

ddl@danlan.*com

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

``In California, any phone call going over the public network
cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH
parties.''


That law is against Federal Wiretapping Laws.
Person may be recorded if one party is aware.

Federal Laws always override state laws.

The California law is invaild. The prosecutor could appeal that
decision and claim the Federal law overwrite state law.


What about the other law?
You are support to report a crime if you overhear it or see it?
There is a conflict of laws here

Greg R