Yes, I was going to make mention of the fact that in California, at least in my experience, when you're speaking with certain types of companies/firms, or making statements for a legal deposition via the telephone, you're probably going to be informed that you're being recorded. Whoever is in charge of recording the conversation will want a clear and concise statement from you stating your name and basic identity information. There would also probably be some brief series of statements you would have to respond to indicating that you know and understand the call is being recorded and that you have agreed/consented to participate in these proceedings. They might even require you to be sworn before you issue your statements. Then, for every minute or so of recorded conversation thereafter, you might hear a beep on the line to let you know that the call is still continuing to be recorded.
I don't know if this is still something they practice, especially now that there's video conferencing technology widely available, but this is how my experience of participating in a recorded conversation for legal purposes went down.
As far as what the OP said:
If I am in a situation where it must be stated that a conversation is being recorded in order for it to be legal, and the company I'm speaking with uses a recording such as "This call may be recorded for whatever purposes", do I have to later state that I am recording as well, or does that recorded message itself constitute a legal notice?
Hm... If you're in a situation where it must be stated that a conversation is being recorded in order for it [the conversation, I assume?] to be "legal," I'm thinking that you'll KNOW you're being recorded. There is nothing to be gained by them tricking you into saying things and secretly recording your statements because if you don't know you're being recorded, the recording is useless as evidence in most courts of law.
Off to the side here, a "legal notice" typically refers to a document bearing a formal complaint which leads to the service of legal process (warrants, summons, subpoenas, etc.) which demands that an individual appear before the court. For our purposes, I believe "legally binding verbal contract," is more appropriate.
At any rate, I don't believe that the outgoing recording you hear which states that
"This call may be monitored or recorded for quality, training, and assurance purposes," constitutes a "legally binding verbal contract" on behalf of the outbound caller, because the inbound caller [the company's telephone representative and/or their outgoing disclaimer message] is only advising the recipient [the outbound caller/customer] of that message as to the potential consequences of continuing the call - especially if there's any chance the customer's privacy, identity, or other sensitive information could be revealed or compromised by the replaying of that conversation in an employee training class, a supervisor meeting, or a court of law, for that matter. By
advising callers that calls may be recorded, they're also giving those callers an opportunity to
discontinue their call and make other arrangements to handle their business with the company.
I'd think you'd have to be willing to do the same for the company representative you end up speaking with in order to have a mutual "legally binding verbal contract." A contract isn't legal or binding until the parties involved
both agree to the terms of it. Also, the party you're intending to record needs to have the same opportunity to agree/consent to participating in a call which is being recorded, or perhaps even discontinue the call if they choose. So, yes, you'd probably have to state that you're recording the conversation, as well, in order for the evidence [the recording] to be legally admissible as evidence in a court of law.
Last but not least, I found this. I don't know how accurate or up to date this information is, but I can't imagine that it's changed too terribly much. I actually found this on the "Can We Tape?" site Johnny1 suggested previously.
Massachusetts
It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years. Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99.
Disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded conversation, when accompanied by the knowledge that it was obtained illegally, is a misdemeanor that can be punished with a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Civil damages are expressly authorized for the greater of actual damages, $100 for each day of violation or $1,000. Punitive damages and attorney fees also are recoverable.
For example, in Com. v. Hanedanian, 742 N.E.2d 1113 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001), the appellate court held that a defendant’s conduct of intentionally making a secret tape recording of oral communications between himself and his attorneys, without consent, violated the statute, even though the defendant was a party to the conversation.
However, the First Circuit, applying the holding in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), held in 2007 that a woman who accepted from a source a recorded tape, that she had reason to know was recorded illegally by the source, could not be punished for publishing the tape on her website. The court held that the woman had a First Amendment right to publish the tape she received. Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, 492 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2007).
An appellate court has also held that the recorded conversation or communication does not need to be intelligible in order for the interception to violate the wiretapping statute. Com. v. Wright, 814 N.E.2d 741 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004).
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
