[VoiceOps] Call Recording Laws in the US

[Luke Marrott]

I think the point is significant because with a VoIP service you have the
potential for your customer to be physically located anywhere in the country
or world, regardless of what number they are using to make or receive calls.
Are the laws are associated with physical location or with the "location" of
the DID?


:Luke Marrott




On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Matt Yaklin <myaklin at g4.net> wrote:

>
> How does being an ITSP differ from a traditional telephone
> service provider when it comes to call recording laws? It would
> seem precedent has been set in the past for these types of
> activities. What those precedents are, I have no idea, but just
> because the call goes over "the internet" versus a copper pair
> to the local central office would not change things in my opinion.
>
> Or am I too naive when it comes to this topic? I imagine if I was
> a Fairpoint retail customer of a POTS and I called and asked about
> this topic they would tell me to get a lawyer and otherwise ignore
> me.
>
> As an employee of an ISP I would never tell a customer you can record
> but please follow the laws. I would say consult a lawyer.
>
> matt
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Peter Beckman wrote:
>
>  So I've been thinking about call recording laws recently and wanted to get
>> some feedback.
>>
>>   1. As an ITSP, are we held liable for enabling our customers to
>>      potentially illegally record a phone call in states where all-party
>>      notification is required?  Or is it solely on the party who did the
>>      illegal recording?
>>
>>   2. Interstate phone calls get tricky -- it may be legal for
>>      single-party notification in the originating or terminating state,
>> but
>>      illegal in the other.
>>
>>   3. When a California resident has a California phone number (a state
>>      which requires all-party notification and consent of call recording)
>>      receives a call when physically in Oregon, which law applies -- CA
>>      or OR?  Assuming the caller is in a single-party consent state.
>>
>> Makes things kinda difficult -- I guess it is simply easier for the ITSP
>> to
>> say "hey, you can record, but follow the laws." and hope we don't get
>> mixed
>> up in it.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Peter Beckman                                                  Internet
>> Guy
>> beckman at angryox.com
>> http://www.angryox.com/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20100113/58b4987b/attachment.html>