It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I was told I cannot record a conversation - has this ever happened to you?

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I got a phone call from my mortgage company, Chase Home Finance. The rep on the line introduced herself, and then said "This call will be recorded for training and accuracy". Standard line, we've all heard it a million times, right?

Well, I was just in one of those moods, so I replied "OK, and I'll just turn my own recorder on on this end". (I don't have a recorder).

The tone of the rep's voice immediately changed, and she said "No sir, you are not allowed to record this conversation" Why? "Because you're not allowed to, that's why. You signed a paper agreeing to that".

I said I don't remember ever signing such a paper (I don't). She said "This call is over. Thank you for your time", and she hung up.

My question to you is, have you ever signed a paper that prohibited you from recording a call? It sounded weird to me...why would they think it was important to do that?




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
In US some states are single consent states where only one participant needs to agree. If you're not in one of those then you probably wouldn't have the right to record it but if you were to deny them the right to record you they would have to comply also.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I don't know about each states rules on this; however, in Texas only one party has to have knowledge of the recording taking place. There is no consent required on the other end. I used to work in liability insurance, so I am well versed in conversation recordings



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. 38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.

12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

It is illegal under all jurisdictions to record calls in which one is not a party.

Call Recording Laws


Also from the link: A complete state-by-state set of regulations regarding telephone call recording may be obtained in the following report published by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

www.rcfp.org...



[edit on 5-5-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I am in a lawsuit with a debt collator who threatened to arrest me

(illegal by the way)

They called from NY, which is a one party consent state.

PA is a two party one- where I was- but law follows the person recorded.

I baited her to threaten me the way she did my wife, and she did loudly...

I told her she was recorded- and made history as the first debt collector to hang up first!

Check laws of states.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


It depends out on a public street you can. In somone's residence/ private property you can't, unless it's your private property and then again you can!
Calls are a gray area, you can tap your own line and as far as I know record all your coversation's however, you should never tell them you are. It's your line you pay for it. And if they are using muscling tactics it's a good thing to do, what it sounds like is they were going to use some kind of tactic and didn't want to be caught being A$$wipes.


On the other hand what if you say to them "no I do not want my conversation recorded, tyvm" do you think they'd have to turn off the recorder? Would they actually follow the law that says they must not record if we refuse to be recorded?
[edit on 5-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by ldyserenity]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
"OK, and I'll just turn my own recorder on on this end". (I don't have a recorder).


This is my new standard reply!!!!

-E-



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well that's a good way to get them from calling you! Next time just tell them, you want to speak to their boss, then keep repeating that each time they transfer you.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 



And if they are using muscling tactics it's a good thing to do, what it sounds like is they were going to use some kind of tactic and didn't want to be caught being A$$wipes.


I think that is what's going on here.

It just bowled me over when she told me "You are not allowed to record this conversation".



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
I got a phone call from my mortgage company, Chase Home Finance. The rep on the line introduced herself, and then said "This call will be recorded for training and accuracy". Standard line, we've all heard it a million times, right?

Well, I was just in one of those moods, so I replied "OK, and I'll just turn my own recorder on on this end". (I don't have a recorder).

The tone of the rep's voice immediately changed, and she said "No sir, you are not allowed to record this conversation" Why? "Because you're not allowed to, that's why. You signed a paper agreeing to that". I said I don't remember ever signing such a paper (I don't). She said "This call is over. Thank you for your time", and she hung up.

My question to you is, have you ever signed a paper that prohibited you from recording a call? It sounded weird to me...why would they think it was important to do that?


You did sign a paper agreeing to anything that Chase wants to impose upon you. You signed that paper when you applied for the mortgage. If you go back and read your mortgage agreement, you'll see lots of fine print. Somewhere in that fine print is a statement saying that you agree to cooperate with any form of record keeping, archiving, or cataloging. You wouldn't have received the mortgage without your signature. This is a type of contract called an, "Adhesion Contract".

Personally I don't talk to people claiming to be from any company if they call me.



[edit on 5-5-2010 by MKULTRA]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 



Well that's a good way to get them from calling you! Next time just tell them, you want to speak to their boss, then keep repeating that each time they transfer you.


Yeah, but I sort of need to talk to them. I'm in the process of a loan modification; that's why I'm on the phone with them.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Incidentally there are further aspects of this adhesion contract that might have further effects. If you ask Chase questions, they have to answer them. But they don't have to provide any further information than exactly what you ask. Be careful about how you respond to their questions as well. They can terminate your mortgage agreement at any time-- that's also in the fine print.


Adhesion Contract: A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.


legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[edit on 5-5-2010 by MKULTRA]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Just for future reference, and I know this will not help you in your current position, but you should take a look at your State's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)...particularly the section dealing with Performance or Acceptance under Reservation of Rights...

Ohio UCC



1301.13 Performance or acceptance under reservation of rights - UCC 1-207.

(A) A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.

(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

Effective Date: 08-19-1994


If you are confronted with explaining what the "UCC 1-207" does here is your answer.


When you are going to sign a contract ( drivers license, lease, buying a
automobile, snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, devoice decree,
or any other document).

BEFORE you sign!!! you have the right to draw a fine line through any
thing that is not to your liking....


Cheers.


[edit on 5/5/2010 by dalan.]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Most laws limiting recording a person are based on the evidence submission in a court, but are not prohibitive of recording a conversation. For example in California, the law requires both parties agree to recordings in order to make them admissible in a court room. What is important to note when reviewing the law is which court will allow or not allow the recordings as evidence. In California, you cannot use a recording for the purpose of evidence in a civil case unless both parties consent; however, the law is clear that recordings without both parties knowledge can be used in criminal cases.

So how do you get around this? You record it anyway but do not tell them (most states do not have a penalty for recording a conversation). If you use it for a civil case you won't be able to admit it as evidence, until they commit a crime. What you do in the civil case is ask them a specific question relating to the recording, that they reverse the facts...then accuse them of perjury. The judge will ask you for proof of perjury (which is a crime) and at that point the evidence may become admissible for the purpose of proving perjury.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Yes they are allowed to and I used to work for a collection agency, you cannot speak to a customer once they say that they are recording the conversation that and you have to let them know that they do not have “the collectors” permission to record the conversation.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Cradle12003
 


I think you are on the money with this one. As it was not a collection call, but related to refinancing the loan, it was probably a simple liability issue on the banks end.

However, do follow the advice given if you feel it is necessary and really do intend to record the conversation. Check the laws in your state as they apply to party consent.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a place to start, and from there you can search for annotated code for your individual state to catch any updates or repeals that may or may not be up to date.

If you are in a one party consent state, most do not require that you notify the other party on the line. That is the whole idea behiond one party consent. You are the one party and you are consenting.

The one thing it would do is assure that the things you are promised are upheld.

Verbal contracts are as good as written ones if you have proof.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
most companies also wont do it because they pretty much dont trust their employees. if they say something wrong or give wrong information you can pretty much sue them, so one of their policies is not to allow recorded conversations.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join