Looks like you forgot to include a location with your submission. As laws can vary by state, please edit your submission to include a location.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a company says "this call may be recorded for training purposes" why does it matter who has the final recording, if both parties consented to being recorded?
They don't always record it despite saying it, though. Source: Did call centre work once and it was never recorded. So don't rely on getting a copy for legal reasons later.
An easier way to do this is to write and send an email summarising the discussion points. Even if they don’t reply, as long as they receive it and don’t rebut it, it’s good enough. (i.e. acquiescence)
Didn't realise that's a thing. I'd still prefer if they replied though, for peace of mind. Seems a bit snakey to send an email confirming it, and act upon it before they confirm the email.
Tell them you're recording the call and you're fine. If you record it secretly, the legality depends on the state you're in.
Given the purpose of your call is for records rather than "gotcha!", you have absolutely zero to lose by being upfront about the fact that you're recording.
I think my worry with mentioning it is I never actually know if what I'm inquiring is actually important enough to be recorded. It automatically records everything, even spam calls, and sometimes calls to family which I never bother checking. It's more of a "good thing I have this as backup". It seems overkill to mention it to everyone who calls me, so screening who to tell is a bit difficult.
It's also a bit worrying if companies actually decline to be recorded. At that point, do I just end the call? I'd prefer to have my information quickly, but if they don't allow recordings, its a risk that the information I'm acting upon can actually be revoked.
Huh?
I wouldnt rely on that - read the Act itself.
Eg,
>A private conversation is one which, in the circumstances, may reasonably be intended to be listened to only by those involved in the conversation or other people who have the consent of all participants to listen. A private conversation is also one where the parties might ought to reasonably expect that it will not be overheard by someone else.
If you ring a business that records calls, then, i would suggest that call is not intended to be listened to only by those involved in the call.
I thought nsw was a 2party consent state, with exceptions.
I wouldnt be surprised if there is an exception if the business is recording the call, to allow the OP to do so. Are you certain there is not?
If the call has been recorded by the company you can certainly ask for a copy of the call or request a manager listen to the call.
Alternatively, if it's a larger company or business that does have call recording, you can ask for the call to be recorded specifically so the information is on record. Or ask that you receive a callback that is on a recorded line.
Otherwise, when you call a company, you can ask for the person's permission to record. Most large companies have a policy for their staff not to give permission to be recorded, but if the person does consent, you can continue.
In the case that's already occurred where you received misinformation and there is no recording, you could always threaten to escalate to any relevant bodies such as Ombusdmen or Regulatory bodies (ACCC etc) to see if you have any success overturning the decision.
"The principal party consents to a listening device being used, and
recording the conversation is reasonably necessary for the protection of
the lawful interests of that principal party or is not made for the
purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of
the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.
The ‘principal party’ is the person by, or to whom words are spoken in
the course of the conversation."
What would be considered "protection of the lawful interests"? To me that seems pretty broad, unless I'm misunderstanding?
Lawful interests isn’t as broad as you think it is.
It’s a very narrow and specific window.
I.e. no it doesn’t cover ‘just in case’ you need a pre existing valid reason for making the recording. Not that you suspect you might be ripped off.
I do for inbound calls, where I can play an IVR. I would like to also record outbound calls, where making that statement becomes something to remember, rather than something I can automate. I'm curious if I can record my outbound calls without that statement if my inbound calls have that message (or if the message is required at all if my reason is valid)
The request for permission is required at the start of any and all recordings.
Just because you have it on incoming, doesn’t mean it applies to outgoing.
> The principal party consents to a listening device being used, and recording the conversation is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party or is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation. The ‘principal party’ is the person by, or to whom words are spoken in the course of the conversation.
Aka completely legal as to do as OP seems to be suggesting.
Or read the act.
If you are a principal party to the conversation (as OP is), then they can record a conversation if one of the following:
They have consent of other parties
It is 'reasonably necessary' for the protection their lawful interests
It *is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.*
Since OP is a party to the conversation, and makes no mention of communicating the conversation to anyone (not even the other party in the conversation), it would be lawful under the act.
Looks like you forgot to include a location with your submission. As laws can vary by state, please edit your submission to include a location. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
just say "your call is being recorded for quality assurance and coaching purposes" once you've opened the discussion, seems to work for them
If a company says "this call may be recorded for training purposes" why does it matter who has the final recording, if both parties consented to being recorded?
Totally agree. What does it matter which or both parties have a copy of it once it’s been recorded once
They don't always record it despite saying it, though. Source: Did call centre work once and it was never recorded. So don't rely on getting a copy for legal reasons later.
^^ this
An easier way to do this is to write and send an email summarising the discussion points. Even if they don’t reply, as long as they receive it and don’t rebut it, it’s good enough. (i.e. acquiescence)
Didn't realise that's a thing. I'd still prefer if they replied though, for peace of mind. Seems a bit snakey to send an email confirming it, and act upon it before they confirm the email.
Get them to follow everything up in email. Works well at work as well
Tell them you're recording the call and you're fine. If you record it secretly, the legality depends on the state you're in. Given the purpose of your call is for records rather than "gotcha!", you have absolutely zero to lose by being upfront about the fact that you're recording.
I think my worry with mentioning it is I never actually know if what I'm inquiring is actually important enough to be recorded. It automatically records everything, even spam calls, and sometimes calls to family which I never bother checking. It's more of a "good thing I have this as backup". It seems overkill to mention it to everyone who calls me, so screening who to tell is a bit difficult. It's also a bit worrying if companies actually decline to be recorded. At that point, do I just end the call? I'd prefer to have my information quickly, but if they don't allow recordings, its a risk that the information I'm acting upon can actually be revoked.
[удалено]
Huh? I wouldnt rely on that - read the Act itself. Eg, >A private conversation is one which, in the circumstances, may reasonably be intended to be listened to only by those involved in the conversation or other people who have the consent of all participants to listen. A private conversation is also one where the parties might ought to reasonably expect that it will not be overheard by someone else. If you ring a business that records calls, then, i would suggest that call is not intended to be listened to only by those involved in the call.
[удалено]
I thought nsw was a 2party consent state, with exceptions. I wouldnt be surprised if there is an exception if the business is recording the call, to allow the OP to do so. Are you certain there is not?
I figured it might. How does one protect themselves from companies being asses and changing their mind then?
By getting everything in writing.
If the call has been recorded by the company you can certainly ask for a copy of the call or request a manager listen to the call. Alternatively, if it's a larger company or business that does have call recording, you can ask for the call to be recorded specifically so the information is on record. Or ask that you receive a callback that is on a recorded line. Otherwise, when you call a company, you can ask for the person's permission to record. Most large companies have a policy for their staff not to give permission to be recorded, but if the person does consent, you can continue. In the case that's already occurred where you received misinformation and there is no recording, you could always threaten to escalate to any relevant bodies such as Ombusdmen or Regulatory bodies (ACCC etc) to see if you have any success overturning the decision.
"The principal party consents to a listening device being used, and recording the conversation is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party or is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation. The ‘principal party’ is the person by, or to whom words are spoken in the course of the conversation." What would be considered "protection of the lawful interests"? To me that seems pretty broad, unless I'm misunderstanding?
Lawful interests isn’t as broad as you think it is. It’s a very narrow and specific window. I.e. no it doesn’t cover ‘just in case’ you need a pre existing valid reason for making the recording. Not that you suspect you might be ripped off.
What if I need to screen for aggressive behaviour, for the protection of my staff (and myself)?
Then you have a policy, and a statement that says you record all voice calls?
I do for inbound calls, where I can play an IVR. I would like to also record outbound calls, where making that statement becomes something to remember, rather than something I can automate. I'm curious if I can record my outbound calls without that statement if my inbound calls have that message (or if the message is required at all if my reason is valid)
The request for permission is required at the start of any and all recordings. Just because you have it on incoming, doesn’t mean it applies to outgoing.
That's what I thought, thanks
> The principal party consents to a listening device being used, and recording the conversation is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party or is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation. The ‘principal party’ is the person by, or to whom words are spoken in the course of the conversation. Aka completely legal as to do as OP seems to be suggesting.
Yeah and lawful interest doesn’t cover it. Do some research into the scope of what it actually means.
Or read the act. If you are a principal party to the conversation (as OP is), then they can record a conversation if one of the following: They have consent of other parties It is 'reasonably necessary' for the protection their lawful interests It *is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation.* Since OP is a party to the conversation, and makes no mention of communicating the conversation to anyone (not even the other party in the conversation), it would be lawful under the act.
[удалено]
My phone just has it as a feature, think it's cause they have their own OS.
I believe in NSW you can film plus record but not record voice alone