In Canada, as long as one party knows the conversation is being recorded then its okay to record the conversation Henry L.Coleman CEO *VoIP-PBX* 1-866-415-5355 Toronto Ontario Canada
> That page is useful for determining whether other parties must consent > to recordings on a call with all endpoints of *a wired line* in a single > state. Because then the state law applies to every part of the call, > without other state jurisdictions. > > But it addresses mobile phones only as radios in discussing how > parties' consent governs recording permission. It doesn't address what > happens when a mobile caller is in a state with different consent > requirements than another caller. And by extension (puns intended ;), > VoIP, where the geographical location of the caller can be hard to > prove, hard to even determine at all, and maybe hard to even be definite > in reality. What about when the recording Asterisk box is in a different > state, across the Internet, from the different people talking? And then > there's government "privileges", like the current controversy over NSA > wiretapping of people in different locations? And related jurisdiction > questions about governing calls passing through American > networks/servers, whose callers aren't even in the US? Do new Internet > gambling laws inform the structural policies? > > I expect that no one knows the answers to what a judge would say if > these recordings were introduced in a court, except in the simple case > of a single state with fixed terminals. Unfortunately, I expect this > list will see a lot of that education getting delivered over the next > several years at very high cost to everyone involved. > > > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 10:01 -0700, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:10:00 -0400 >> From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] snom 360: how to make record button >> working ? >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:17:47AM -0400, sip wrote: >> > That varies from location to location, really. In Georgia, for >> instance, only >> > ONE party need know the recording is taking place (calling or >> receiving) >> > without a warrant. In some countries, neither party need know, etc, >> etc. >> >> This page: >> >> http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html >> >> purports to list the states that require all party consent. It is >> from >> a private investigation site, and was the number one google hit, so it >> may be reliable. This is not legal advice; IANAL. If my advice >> breaks >> something, you get to keep both pieces, unless you paid me for it. >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra >> -- >> Jay R. Ashworth >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Designer Baylink >> RFC 2100 >> Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think >> '87 e24 >> St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 >> 647 1274 >> >> "That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later, >> they stop having sex with you." -- Jennifer Crusie; >> _Fast_Women_ >> > -- > > (C) Matthew Rubenstein > > _______________________________________________ > --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- > > asterisk-biz mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz > > _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
