Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Recorder supports recording calls now.
- Thread starter The General
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It says it only works in the US, but I wonder if it's only allowed in certain places, because one-party recording is illegal in many states.
Edit: Here's the list of one-party vs. two-party states (per Wikipedia)
Two party consent states
Twelve states currently require that BOTH or ALL parties consent to the recording. These states are:
California
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
One party consent states
All other states, and the District of Columbia, besides those listed above require only one party consent just like federal law. However there are certain exceptions to these rules. See full rules here. Also note that according to the California court case Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (July 13,2006) if you call from a one party consent state into California, then the two party consent law outweighs the one party consent law.
Edit: Here's the list of one-party vs. two-party states (per Wikipedia)
Two party consent states
Twelve states currently require that BOTH or ALL parties consent to the recording. These states are:
California
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
One party consent states
All other states, and the District of Columbia, besides those listed above require only one party consent just like federal law. However there are certain exceptions to these rules. See full rules here. Also note that according to the California court case Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (July 13,2006) if you call from a one party consent state into California, then the two party consent law outweighs the one party consent law.
Why is there even a law for something like that? Who cares?
because ppl can record something u say confidentially without your knowledge, then use it against you for things like blackmail..granted those types of people wouldn't follow the law anyway..but it keeps honest people honest.
I thought the API didn't permit recording calls.
Now we get into territory where. What if an in app purchase does something that's against what apple permits?
Are in app purchases monitored or is there quality control after an app has been submitted?
Now we get into territory where. What if an in app purchase does something that's against what apple permits?
Are in app purchases monitored or is there quality control after an app has been submitted?
I think it's more about what is admissible in court really. An illegal recording is not. A legal one is. And the argument is that if you don't know you're being recorded you might say things or be lured to say things that could be taken out of context.
It's not only what's admissible. You can also be prosecuted for illegal wiretapping if you record a phone call without the consent of both parties in a two-party state.
Let's try to stay out of the legal discussion here and what is available to us as either developers or iphone users...the more the merrier.
Law wise, thank God I live in Georgia and don't have to put up with nonsense laws..
Law wise, thank God I live in Georgia and don't have to put up with nonsense laws..
Why not talk about the legalities? There's nothing wrong with informing people that they may be breaking the law by using a feature an app offers.
no one is suggesting that it not be allowed.Why not talk about the legalities? There's nothing wrong with
informing people that they may be breaking the law by using a feature
an app offers.
be allowed.
First of all are you a Lawyer or in a position to give legal advise?
I can't stand legal talk from armchair or wiki lawyers.
Do I have to be a lawyer to say that killing someone without provocation is against the law?
I'm not offering legal advice. I asked a simple question about whether there were restrictions due to varying state laws, which led to this tangent. If you're not interested, ignore that part of the thread. Who cares?I believe the way it works is you call a special phone number and it forwards your call and records it, and then the app downloads the recording. You have to purchase credits through the app, as they charge per minute for the service. Also, it only works with outgoing calls.
OK, not to get too off topic but we can't buy alcohol in stores on Sundays, nor can we buy REAL fireworks even though guns are more dangerous and less fun, yet wholly legal.
But back to the topic, I really don't get why this is such a hindrance. If I were to be interviewing someone over the phone, an in-app recorder would be HUGE. I can't type fast and pay attention to what someone's saying, so it would rock. This could be a standard feature on the built-in Apple voice recorder if not for those outdated laws. I mean I get the gist behind it, but those laws that don't affect me sure do put a hindrance on a nice feature.
Ntombi, the comments/reviews on the App description in iTunes say that there is a message at the beginning of the call that tells the person on the other line that the call is being recorded. It is no longer wire-tapping and no longer illegal once the other person has been told that they are being recorded. Although, I think to fully comply with the law, you need the other person to say "I am aware that this call is being recorded."
Personally, I don't think Apple should have approved of this functionality. A lot of legal cases will likely arise as a result of this App. Here's how I see this being abused: One high school student calls another high school student, who hears the recording and then passes the phone to another high school student while intentionally not telling the other person that the call is being recorded. As a result of the phone call, something huge happens that ends up all over the media and Youtube, and then the high school students' parents file a lawsuit in Federal court, and the District Attorney then files a lawsuit for wiretapping. Oh, and the App developer, Apple, and AT&T will also be required to defend themselves in court. The App developer, Apple, and AT&T may succeed in defending their innocence because the warning message was sidestepped, but never the less, they will have to show up in Federal court. Yeah, I really don't think Apple should have approved this App. The clock is ticking... it's just a matter of time.
I'm not an expert myself, but most of the time when you call a company or you get a call from a company there is a recorded message that says "This call may be recorded for quality control purposes" and I never said "I am aware that this call is being recorded.", so I guess I'm going to start suing all the companies (Dell, Comcast, AT&T, and a few more) so I will be rich by the end of the year
Luckily this is a debate especially for those in the US where the mentality seems to be that one should sue over pretty much anything that happens.
Unluckily, that mentality is spreading through out the world now that people have figured out that they can get rich from tripping over a curb and suing the local council for not putting up a sign saying "Mind your step". Because people are starting to become so dumb that they blame someone else for not picking up their feet!
Some common sense needs to be put back into the legal system as to what people can and can not sue for.
I would consider this application more a breach of privacy if no comment was made to the person being called about the recording. But since that has been address as being the case, I don't see why it should be an issue.
If you're stupid enough to say something incriminating on the phone after hearing that this call will be recorded, then you're caught.. Simple as that.
But to make recording of phone calls illegal with the notice saying it IS being recorded is just plain silly!
With the legal system going as it is, we're soon going to need permission to take a leak! and that will be granted as long as we wear hard hats in case we fall and crack our skull (since then we can sue someone over leaving a tap running that dipped water on the floor making it slippery), safety boots in case we do fall and the sink we hit our head on falls on our toes and cuts some of them off (since we can sue for the same reason), Fluro jackets so that if anyone was to come into the toilet they can clearly see us, (since we can sue someone for the same reason), and a full body condom just in case we catch something (since we can sue the previous visitor for passing it on)
Even Australia is picking up on this "Get rich quick mentality" sue your dad for stealing your business idea, your neighbour for his dog taking a dump in your back yard, etc.
Judge Judy is the perfect example of total idiocy when it comes to the legal system..
Ok so my rant isn't quite about recording phone calls but close enough.
Unluckily, that mentality is spreading through out the world now that people have figured out that they can get rich from tripping over a curb and suing the local council for not putting up a sign saying "Mind your step". Because people are starting to become so dumb that they blame someone else for not picking up their feet!
Some common sense needs to be put back into the legal system as to what people can and can not sue for.
I would consider this application more a breach of privacy if no comment was made to the person being called about the recording. But since that has been address as being the case, I don't see why it should be an issue.
If you're stupid enough to say something incriminating on the phone after hearing that this call will be recorded, then you're caught.. Simple as that.
But to make recording of phone calls illegal with the notice saying it IS being recorded is just plain silly!
With the legal system going as it is, we're soon going to need permission to take a leak! and that will be granted as long as we wear hard hats in case we fall and crack our skull (since then we can sue someone over leaving a tap running that dipped water on the floor making it slippery), safety boots in case we do fall and the sink we hit our head on falls on our toes and cuts some of them off (since we can sue for the same reason), Fluro jackets so that if anyone was to come into the toilet they can clearly see us, (since we can sue someone for the same reason), and a full body condom just in case we catch something (since we can sue the previous visitor for passing it on)
Even Australia is picking up on this "Get rich quick mentality" sue your dad for stealing your business idea, your neighbour for his dog taking a dump in your back yard, etc.
Judge Judy is the perfect example of total idiocy when it comes to the legal system..
Ok so my rant isn't quite about recording phone calls
but close enough.Luckily this is a debate especially for those in the US where the mentality seems to be that one should sue over pretty much anything that happens.
Unluckily, that mentality is spreading through out the world now that people have figured out that they can get rich from tripping over a curb and suing the local council for not putting up a sign saying "Mind your step". Because people are starting to become so dumb that they blame someone else for not picking up their feet!
Some common sense needs to be put back into the legal system as to what people can and can not sue for.
I would consider this application more a breach of privacy if no comment was made to the person being called about the recording. But since that has been address as being the case, I don't see why it should be an issue.
If you're stupid enough to say something incriminating on the phone after hearing that this call will be recorded, then you're caught.. Simple as that.
But to make recording of phone calls illegal with the notice saying it IS being recorded is just plain silly!
With the legal system going as it is, we're soon going to need permission to take a leak! and that will be granted as long as we wear hard hats in case we fall and crack our skull (since then we can sue someone over leaving a tap running that dipped water on the floor making it slippery), safety boots in case we do fall and the sink we hit our head on falls on our toes and cuts some of them off (since we can sue for the same reason), Fluro jackets so that if anyone was to come into the toilet they can clearly see us, (since we can sue someone for the same reason), and a full body condom just in case we catch something (since we can sue the previous visitor for passing it on)
Even Australia is picking up on this "Get rich quick mentality" sue your dad for stealing your business idea, your neighbour for his dog taking a dump in your back yard, etc.
Judge Judy is the perfect example of total idiocy when it comes to the legal system..
Ok so my rant isn't quite about recording phone calls
I'm 100% with you there, and just in case you didn't notice I was being sarcastic
, If a recording says that you are being recorded I don't see a problem here, I'm pretty sure that if really big corporations are using similar systems is because there is no problem at all.