Why is a voice prompt required for call recording?

[TheMystic]

Can someone explain how silent call recording is an invasion of privacy?

There is a lot of talk that a person has a right to know that his/ her conversation is being recorded, and that is fine, but then how is silent recording an invasion of privacy?

What is the person complaining concerned about? Being caught of hypocrisy? Being caught of lies? Being caught of double speak?

As far as I know, call recordings aren't an acceptable evidence in a court of law due to the potential of manipulation using technology. This makes the above questions even more pertinent.

There are CCTV cameras installed in so many public places. Aren't these an invasion of privacy then, going by the same logic? Paparazzi hounding on celebrities and popular personalities in public life: aren't these an invasion of privacy and free movement?

Although advocates in support of a voice prompt keep shouting 'privacy', I haven't yet come across specific scenarios where this is indeed an invasion of privacy. On the contrary, there are innumerable scenarios where call recordings are useful in calling out bluff, even if they don't stand as evidence in a court of law.

I'm still open to the idea that there could be very specific scenarios where this would indeed be an invasion of privacy. So it would help if someone can list them. But until then, this only seems to be a tool to protect hypocrites and liars who can't own up to what they speak.

On a personal level, I'm completely fine if someone is recording my conversation without my knowledge.

 

[xXx yYy]

.

 

[ze7zez]

In a sense, access to interviews is a monopoly on resolving the truth. For example, journalism or the secret services could lose the stature of their work.
In a world where there are many ways to track and record activities from the individual to social groups, restrictions no longer make sense because they are not effective.

 

[TheMystic]

In a sense, access to interviews is a monopoly on resolving the truth. For example, journalism or the secret services could lose the stature of their work.
In a world where there are many ways to track and record activities from the individual to social groups, restrictions no longer make sense because they are not effective.

It is not just those, there are so many scenarios where call recordings are useful. I would be fine if call recording is an automatic and permanent feature on all phones, and everyone is aware that calls are being recorded (users can have the option to turn it off if they want). That would be better than a voice prompt which is very annoying.

 

[ze7zez]

It is not just those, there are so many scenarios where call recordings are useful. I would be fine if call recording is an automatic and permanent feature on all phones, and everyone is aware that calls are being recorded (users can have the option to turn it off if they want). That would be better than a voice prompt which is very annoying.

Our opinions differ on the availability of services. In my opinion, it is better if the services (any) are turned off and the user decides for himself to turn them on.
Any service that runs on the phone in the background consumes the battery.

 

[V0latyle]

Can someone explain how silent call recording is an invasion of privacy?

There are two separate concepts here - a personal expectation of privacy, vs the legal definition of an expectation of privacy. Assuming that your conversation with a second party is private is one thing; the legal ability to record and/or monitor said conversation is another.

In many jurisdictions, such as my US state, only single party consent is required - where any entity party to a conversation may record said conversation without the explicit consent of other parties involved. Generally the legal basis is that no one can make the legally binding assumption that their conversation is private.

In some areas, single party consent is all that is required on the condition that all parties are informed that the conversation is being recorded, meaning their continued participation in said conversation is implied consent to recording.

In yet others, any recording or monitoring of conversations is prohibited without the explicit consent of all parties involved - with certain limitations, such as where the conversation is taking place, or what the purpose of the conversation is, or the occupation of one of the parties involved. Many courts have agreed that public servants in performance of their duties have no expectation of privacy - such as someone recording police interactions.

There is a lot of talk that a person has a right to know that his/ her conversation is being recorded, and that is fine, but then how is silent recording an invasion of privacy?

Because "silent" in this context means they haven't been informed and don't reasonably know. Again, this comes down to a legal definition of what is a reasonable expectation of privacy is. Many argue on the basis of opinion; but there is a difference between thinking something is an inherent right, vs the law codifying it as a recognized right. There are plenty of sovereign citizens out there who think they are not subject to the laws that have been enacted by a majority vote of the representatives elected by another majority vote of their peers. They end up getting stopped for various issues, such as driving without registration or insurance, end up in court, and always lose.

Of course, we can argue on the ethics and morality of surreptitious recording, but ultimately the only thing that matters is the law.

What is the person complaining concerned about? Being caught of hypocrisy? Being caught of lies? Being caught of double speak?

If it's single party consent without duty to inform, their complaints are irrelevant. Likewise if they've been informed but continue to participate in the conversation. Their feelings don't matter in this regard.

As far as I know, call recordings aren't an acceptable evidence in a court of law due to the potential of manipulation using technology. This makes the above questions even more pertinent.

They absolutely are - wiretaps are used all the time to obtain FISA warrants.

There are CCTV cameras installed in so many public places. Aren't these an invasion of privacy then, going by the same logic? Paparazzi hounding on celebrities and popular personalities in public life: aren't these an invasion of privacy and free movement?

Once again, refer to the law. This is why there are often signs posted informing people in an area that they are subject to video recording - like on the front door of any Walmart. This is largely redundant because any court would likely conclude that no patron of a business frequented by the general public has any real expectation of privacy.

Although advocates in support of a voice prompt keep shouting 'privacy', I haven't yet come across specific scenarios where this is indeed an invasion of privacy. On the contrary, there are innumerable scenarios where call recordings are useful in calling out bluff, even if they don't stand as evidence in a court of law.

I'm still open to the idea that there could be very specific scenarios where this would indeed be an invasion of privacy. So it would help if someone can list them. But until then, this only seems to be a tool to protect hypocrites and liars who can't own up to what they speak.

On a personal level, I'm completely fine if someone is recording my conversation without my knowledge.

Same, but make sure you don't run afoul of the law. I have many personal beliefs that directly contradict what the law says in many areas - such as what I should have the right to do to anyone who tries to harm my family. Ultimately, the law is applicable to everyone within its jurisdiction.

 

[TheMystic]

In many jurisdictions, such as my US state, only single party consent is required - where any entity party to a conversation may record said conversation without the explicit consent of other parties involved. Generally the legal basis is that no one can make the legally binding assumption that their conversation is private.

In some areas, single party consent is all that is required on the condition that all parties are informed that the conversation is being recorded, meaning their continued participation in said conversation is implied consent to recording.

In yet others, any recording or monitoring of conversations is prohibited without the explicit consent of all parties involved - with certain limitations, such as where the conversation is taking place, or what the purpose of the conversation is, or the occupation of one of the parties involved. Many courts have agreed that public servants in performance of their duties have no expectation of privacy - such as someone recording police interactions.

I want to understand the rationale behind such laws that require all parties to be informed and consent taken.

I have tried to think about what that could be, and also searched for it, but didn't find any convincing reasoning or scenarios that require a law like that. All I find is 'Privacy' without elaboration.

Of course, we can argue on the ethics and morality of surreptitious recording, but ultimately the only thing that matters is the law.

In 99% (and more) of conversations, parties are not under any duress or compulsion to speak something. So what are they worried about? The only people who would have a problem in their conversations being recorded are those who are lying and would want to deny having said something. If not, what is the problem?

I don't see any issues with ethics or morality of surreptitious recording.

Because "silent" in this context means they haven't been informed and don't reasonably know. Again, this comes down to a legal definition of what is a reasonable expectation of privacy is.

If I say something, and that is revealed, under what genuine circumstances will I have a problem with that?

I may share a secret with a friend and the friend can reveal that to someone else. As far as I'm concerned, he has broken my trust and I'll keep that in mind. But how or under what circumstances is that an invasion of 'privacy'? And is it really so bad that we need a law prohibiting recording?

I see this as a violation of trust, not privacy.

If I have said something, i should be able to stand by it, or have the courage to correct myself/ apologise. And if I say a lie, there should be consequences. Not a law that actually protects me if I lie.

 

[ze7zez]

(...)

If I have said something, i should be able to stand by it, or have the courage to correct myself/ apologise. And if I say a lie, there should be consequences. Not a law that actually protects me if I lie.

You touched on the essence of the law. It serves those who created it for their benefit.

 

[TheMystic]

You touched on the essence of the law. It serves those who created it for their benefit.

Absolutely. Lawmakers are the biggest liars and a law like this protects them, crony capitalists and their all-powerful lobbyists.

 

[ze7zez]

Absolutely. Lawmakers are the biggest liars and a law like this protects them, crony capitalists and their all-powerful lobbyists.

On the other hand, however, it eliminates anarchy, which is even worse.

 

[V0latyle]

I want to understand the rationale behind such laws that require all parties to be informed and consent taken.

I have tried to think about what that could be, and also searched for it, but didn't find any convincing reasoning or scenarios that require a law like that. All I find is 'Privacy' without elaboration.

Well, this is where we might find some philosophical disagreements - does not every individual have a unique right to privacy, regardless of whether or not information could be potentially harmful if divulged?

In 99% (and more) of conversations, parties are not under any duress or compulsion to speak something. So what are they worried about? The only people who would have a problem in their conversations being recorded are those who are lying and would want to deny having said something. If not, what is the problem?

"If you have nothing to hide, why refuse a search without a warrant?" Your justifications for breach of privacy may not be acceptable to another.

I don't see any issues with ethics or morality of surreptitious recording.

Because no one has ever used recorded conversations out of context for damaging purposes, right? The most recent former President would like to have a word with you.

If I say something, and that is revealed, under what genuine circumstances will I have a problem with that?

Any circumstances you damn well please, honestly. Assuming single party consent, if you share something in confidence with a trusted friend, you're likely not concerned with what they might to with that information. If you're being arraigned for a crime and having a private conversation with your attorney, imagine the damage that could be done if your own private statements were used against you in court.

I may share a secret with a friend and the friend can reveal that to someone else. As far as I'm concerned, he has broken my trust and I'll keep that in mind. But how or under what circumstances is that an invasion of 'privacy'? And is it really so bad that we need a law prohibiting recording?

Privacy = trusted security. If you shared something in confidence with a friend and they divulged that information without your consent, they've violated your trust and therefore your privacy.

Note that in most cases the law only prohibits recording in certain circumstances, and provides criteria that must be met for private conversations to be recorded. In most cases, at least one entity who is party to the conversation must be aware that recording is taking place and must consent to it. If someone wiretaps your phone or bugs your home without your knowledge, and neither you nor anyone being recorded is aware, how is that not a breach of privacy? This is where the criteria comes in: generally, at least one person being recorded must be aware and must consent; often, this requires that all other parties be aware as well (no silent recording) so their participation is implied consent, and in some jurisdictions, all parties must give explicit consent. Oddly enough, California is one of the latter, yet they've decriminalized the intentional exposure of someone to HIV without their knowledge...

I see this as a violation of trust, not privacy.

They're essentially the same thing.

If I have said something, i should be able to stand by it, or have the courage to correct myself/ apologise. And if I say a lie, there should be consequences. Not a law that actually protects me if I lie.

Maybe, but there's a difference between what I tell the world, and what I tell my wife. I tend to be rather outspoken, but I am still aware how statements can be misused in this day and age, so there are many things I tell her that I wouldn't tell anyone else. I'm not ashamed of anything I have to say by any means, but the reality is in this litigious society, there are too many people who will try to damage you simply for an opinion.

Absolutely. Lawmakers are the biggest liars and a law like this protects them, crony capitalists and their all-powerful lobbyists.

Remember that we do not allow political discussions on XDA; this is due to our site owner being particularly concerned of having funding being withdrawn for content on this site.

 

[TheMystic]

On the other hand, however, it eliminates anarchy, which is even worse.

Not sure I understand you correctly. We don't need anarchy. I don't know how these are linked with each other.

 

[TheMystic]

does not every individual have a unique right to privacy,

Ofcourse, they do. But this isn't an issue of privacy for the most part.

"If you have nothing to hide, why refuse a search without a warrant?" Your justifications for breach of privacy may not be acceptable to another.

This is a completely different subject. How can someone just walk in and search my private property without a reason? Just because I'm not having anything against the law, doesn't mean I can't have my privacy. This is private property for a reason.

Because no one has ever used recorded conversations out of context for damaging purposes, right? The most recent former President would like to have a word with you.

Taking things out of context, or selectively picking parts of a conversation without context is again another subject. This too has nothing to do with privacy.

If you're being arraigned for a crime and having a private conversation with your attorney, imagine the damage that could be done if your own private statements were used against you in court.

It would be a good thing I would say. An offense must be punished.

Jokes aside, this is also why such recordings usually aren't an acceptable form of evidence in court.

If someone wiretaps your phone or bugs your home without your knowledge, and neither you nor anyone being recorded is aware, how is that not a breach of privacy?

This would be a breach of private space and privacy because this is no conversation. The issue here is whether what someone stands by what he speaks or not.

An example: An insurance company authorised representative calls me and explains the policy in detail. I ask for clarifications and he lies about what is covered and what is not.

It is only when there is a claim do I realise that something which I was told was covered isn't actually covered.

Another example: An employer promises a certain bonus/ incentive if a given target is achieved. Employee achieves the target. Employer now denies making an offer like that.

There are innumerable examples that can be given which happen every single day to millions of people. So should people be allowed to bluff their way without accountability/ consequence?

Oddly enough, California is one of the latter, yet they've decriminalized the intentional exposure of someone to HIV without their knowledge..

We have bizarre laws in several places.

They're essentially the same thing.

I would like to disagree here. They may be connected, but they are not the same.

Breach of Trust and Breach of Privacy are two different things.

Maybe, but there's a difference between what I tell the world, and what I tell my wife. I tend to be rather outspoken, but I am still aware how statements can be misused in this day and age, so there are many things I tell her that I wouldn't tell anyone else. I'm not ashamed of anything I have to say by any means, but the reality is in this litigious society, there are too many people who will try to damage you simply for an opinion.

Sure. The question is whether you would say something and then deny having said that.

Remember that we do not allow political discussions on XDA; this is due to our site owner being particularly concerned of having funding being withdrawn for content on this site.

Sure. This wasn't a statement about any particular entity, but only a generalized statement. I will, however, keep this is mind though.