Is it illegal for one employee to tape the phone conversation of another?

[Dis]

My boss says it isn't illegal because they are company cell phones. Which I think is bull****. They probably are only saying that to cover their asses and hope we don't sue. And like a moron I gave the tape to my boss hoping this guy would be fired. The only reason they don't fire the guy is because he's gay, and he's claiming everyone hates him because he's gay. He may have been recording these conversations because someone was saying anti-gay things to him.

So anyways, he says it isn't illegal, only against company policy. Nevermine he was never authorized by the bosses to do this. And we never signed a clause when we were hired that our cell phone conversations could be taped.

I was kind of pissed over this last week. But in the end, it doesn't really affect me. I was just sticking up for a coworker. I learned the hard way never to stick up for coworkers. Modern american companies it's every man (and woman) for themselves. You basically just got to cover your own ass. And I got in a lot of trouble for reporting an activity in which I thought was illegal.

[Dis]

I probably shouldn't post this thread, I might get fired.

[Flubber]

Requirements seem to vary by state but gnereally at least one party to the call must be aware of the taping

This article was for journalists but I think it covers some of what you are asking

Recording Phone Conversations: A Checklist
Things to keep in mind before pressing the button.

By Al Tompkins (more by author)



Here are some things to keep in mind as you decide whether or not to record a phone conversation with a source.

If the call involves two parties in the same state, you must know whether that state is a one-party or a two-party state before recording the call. Here's a way to check.
If the call crosses state lines, you must know the law for both states.
If you record a call with the other person's permission, be certain that you get that permission on tape.
The ban against recording also includes recording voicemail greetings, as a station in Louisiana found out.
Journalists should read a standardized, lawyer-prepared script to the person on the other end of the phone EVERY TIME they intend to tape somebody then broadcast that tape recording. This is NOT the one-party/two-party issue. The question here is about rebroadcasting what you tape.
Section 73.1206 of the FCC regulations says:

..before recording a telephone conversation for broadcast or broadcasting such a conversation simultaneously with its occurrence, a licensee shall inform any party to the call of its intention to broadcast the conversation, except where such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the circumstances of the conversation, that it is being or likely will be broadcast.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press makes it clear that the person you are interviewing need not give permission, but that they be informed. It is always a good idea to talk with your lawyer about what your station's rules are. The lawyer will probably want to draft the "script" you will read before recording.

[Ming]

It's probably illegal. It's against the law to tape a phone conversation in the US without a court order or the permission of both parties... Now, if both people were employees, and they had been warned that all work phone conversations were being recorded....
I don't know if that would stand up in court...

But if the call involved a non employee, it was illegal. You will note that on many calls to a customer service line, you are notified that the call may be being monitored or recorded to improve customer relations... by continuing with the call, you are giving your consent.

[Flubber]

This is a little more detailed . It appears that consent of ONE party to a call is enough in ther majority of states.

.

However, there are important questions of law that must be addressed first. Both federal and state statutes govern the use of electronic recording equipment. The unlawful use of such equipment can give rise not only to a civil suit by the "injured" party, but also criminal prosecution.

....




Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping — listening in on conversations of others without their knowledge — they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews.

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 also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve 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. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.

Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.

At least 24 states have laws outlawing certain uses of hidden cameras in private places, although many of the laws are specifically limited to attempts to record nudity. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. Journalists should be aware, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

[Ming]

Flubber... thanks for the info... I always thought BOTH parties had to be aware it was being taped... Probably because I live in Illinois

[Dis]

thanks for the info. Interesting to note the clause in parenthesis about Nevada. We have one party, but our state supreme court interperets it as an all party rule.

[chequita guevara]

Nevada, Florida, and Illinois require both parties to consent. Your coworker broke the law. Theoetically, you could tell them they need to fire him or you're going to the police.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Interesting our conference call company has a standard feature of being able to record all details of a given conference call. I never remember hearing anyone ever given indicationo that the conference calls are recorded presumably because there are so many parties onthe conference call it is assumed to be public knowledge and/or assumed to be recorded/transcribed in meeting notes.

[Zkribbler]

In California, it's only illegal to secretly tape a confidential conversation. So the battles are usually whether the call was confidential or not.

Most employee handbooks state an employee has not right to any expectation of privacy in phone calls made over a company phone (this lets the employer secret tape record them ). In your situation, I would argue that, since there's no expectation of privacy, it's not confidential, and therefore okay to tape.

[SlowwHand]

Be careful on email. Many companies are hiring people to just do that, check emails. Assume email will be known publicly.

[Zkribbler]

I know. I sometime plant disinformation in them.

[duke o' york]

And whaddya do wid de rest of de information?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nevada, Florida, and Illinois require both parties to consent. Your coworker broke the law. Theoetically, you could tell them they need to fire him or you're going to the police.

And that could get you sued (successfully) for contract interference and interference with economic advantage torts by the employee.

Courts have often treated cell phone and even cordless phones attached to landlines differently, depending on the subject at issue, as the reasonable expectation of privacy has been ruled to be less with such phones.

[Datajack Franit]

Who would ever want to fire a gay employee btw. They work more and they even accept lower wages, in exchange for a monthly prize