Recording a call

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Mellor wrote: »

I quoted two posts. The first is not "in your experience". It says you cannot opt out. That's a definitive statement. It is incorrect as in many case you can opt to not be recorded.

i said in my experience you cannot opt out and continue the call once the call is in motion. The statement is correct



I am not responding to you again.

Mellor

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

i said in my experience you cannot opt out and continue the call once the call is in motion. The statement is correct



I am not responding to you again.

Many companies do allow you to opt out. You can add on the “in your experience” tag if you like. But it wasn’t in this post that I quoted. So my point remains. This post was not correct.

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

Really what I meant is you cannot opt out and continue with the call, yopu cannot say to the person answering i don't want to be recorded.In the case i know of it was a medical service which the Data Protection Comm upheld a complaint about.The call was recorded but the 'this call is being recorded' did not play..

It came in very handy as the company were able to confirm it was their error and, in fairness, were upfront about it

Its ok, I don’t need a response. It’s pretty clear cut.

tjhook

Mellor wrote: »

How does your recording the call help with training of staff?
Monitoring the the service you receive is outside the specific meaning of the phrasing imo.

The conditions can be parsed in at least two ways:

1. This call may be recorded for training purposes and also for quality purposes. I.e. either one.

2. This call may be recorded only if it's for both training and quality purposes.

Now number (2) above is ridiculous. Is a company really going to replay every single call they receive every day to their employees in order to train them? If not, they'd be in breach of their own conditions. You could say "well you can't prove they're *not* doing that". Fine. You also can't prove I'm not also recording it for the purposes of training people in my own organisation. Or even just to train myself to be better at making such calls.

Number (1) is more realistic. And remember "Contra proferentem" - ambiguity in a contract/agreement is interpreted to the advantage of the person who doesn't draft it. Either way, neither interpretation specifies who is or isn't allowed to record the call.

You can't add restrictions/conditions beyond those agreed. Otherwise, when I agreed to pay you €x monthly for a service, I obviously meant it only applied to those months when I used the service *a lot*. So I won't be paying this month.

Mellor

tjhook wrote: »

The conditions can be parsed in at least two ways:

1. This call may be recorded for training purposes and also for quality purposes. I.e. either one.

2. This call may be recorded only if it's for both training and quality purposes.

Well no, it can't be parsed in both of those ways. In order for for 1. to apply, you had to add the word also.
Or change the "and" to an "or". Which isn't there.

Remember, you are the one relying on the exact definition of "may be" as justification. If that's the approach, you have to maintain it for the entire application. So 2 can out apply.

Now number (2) above is ridiculous. Is a company really going to replay every single call they receive every day to their employees in order to train them? If not, they'd be in breach of their own conditions.

I don't see how there is any implication that every single call all day every day will be used. Even if they only said "for training purposes only". There is no suggestion that all have to be used.

The above is not the companies conditions btw. Their intention is quite clear, they are recording the calls for their own training and quality.

It is you that is trying twist their words into a grant of permission, if that's your angle that's fine. But you then have to apply the same pedantic exactness across the entire phrase. Which is where you fall down. You can't half apply it.

You could say "well you can't prove they're *not* doing that". Fine. You also can't prove I'm not also recording it for the purposes of training people in my own organisation. Or even just to train myself to be better at making such calls.

I think it would be quite easy to prove that you weren't operating a company training people.
And of you were in fact recording the call to train people in your own organisation you'd be breaking the law as the other party hasn't consented to being recorded - the operator isn't played the "calls may be recorded message". So he hasn't consented to TJHook Ltd making recordings of him.

Number (1) is more realistic. And remember "Contra proferentem" - ambiguity in a contract/agreement is interpreted to the advantage of the person who doesn't draft it. Either way, neither interpretation specifies who is or isn't allowed to record the call.

You can't add restrictions/conditions beyond those agreed. Otherwise, when I agreed to pay you €x monthly for a service, I obviously meant it only applied to those months when I used the service *a lot*. So I won't be paying this month.

You are making a false dichotomy.
The much more logical implication is that are using may in the sense of "might be" record the call. Once that's the implication there is no change of "contract" at any point.
The restriction only comes about because you are trying to reinterpret it as "you may". Again, you're interpretation, not theirs.


You have a better chance argue single party consent is legal. But the above approach, trying to imply that the operator and company gave consent is on very shaky foundations.

Peregrinus

I think if the operator wants only itself to record the call, it is unwise to use the passive voice. If the intention is that "we can record this call but you may not", then the message should not start "this call may be recorded . . . ", but rather "we may record this call . . .".

Plus, I'm not sure that too much weight can be placed on words like ". . . for training and quality control purposes". After all, the recording is often used for other purposes, e.g. evidentiary purposes in relation to a dispute over what was said, and nobody objects that this is not permitted. At best, these words indicate the organisation's motivation for recording calls, but they don't necessarily operate as a limitation on the use that can be made of the recording.

As others have said, when it's an individual consumer versus a commercial organisation, and the commercial organisation is the one making the statement about recording, then any ambiguity or lack of precision is going to be resolved in the consumer's favour, and against the organisation. I think if the organisation seeks a state of affairs in which they may or may not record the call for their own reasons, as they choose, but the other party may not record the call for any reason, they would need to make that last bit pretty clear.

I don't know of any case in practice where an organisation with a 'this call may be recorded" message in any form has objected to the introduction of a recording made by the other party to the call. Has anyone come accross such case? Quite apart from the legalities, which I think are fuzzy, from a PR point of view the optics would be extremely poor.

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think if the operator wants only itself to record the call, it is unwise to use the passive voice. If the intention is that "we can record this call but you may not", then the message should not start "this call may be recorded . . . ", but rather "we may record this call . . .".

It's not about whether they want to restrict recording (they can't afaik).

Somebody not explicated giving permission, isn't the same as then saying you cannot do it.
I was pointing out that trying twist implicit permission is a bad line of argument to go down. And unnecessary.

Plus, I'm not sure that too much weight can be placed on words like ". . . for training and quality control purposes". After all, the recording is often used for other purposes, e.g. evidentiary purposes in relation to a dispute over what was said, and nobody objects that this is not permitted. At best, these words indicate the organisation's motivation for recording calls, but they don't necessarily operate as a limitation on the use that can be made of the recording.

Agreed.
The reason why you do something doesn't relate to it becoming evidence in future.

As others have said, when it's an individual consumer versus a commercial organisation, and the commercial organisation is the one making the statement about recording, then any ambiguity or lack of precision is going to be resolved in the consumer's favour, and against the organisation. I think if the organisation seeks a state of affairs in which they may or may not record the call for their own reasons, as they choose, but the other party may not record the call for any reason, they would need to make that last bit pretty clear.

Firstly, I believe single party consent applies in Ireland. An individual recording a call they are a party to gives their consent, and are free to go. But where both parties must consent it gets fuzzy.

And a corporate entity is a third party to the call and the one recording two individuals. Hence the message at the start, that you give consent by continuing, etc.
But the person on the other end of the call isn't the one who recording the call, gave the message, or consented. In a situation where both parties need to consent, I can see a situation arising where their individual rights being affected.
Again not in Ireland, and unlikely to be an issue in action against the corporate party.

tjhook

So, correct me if I've misunderstood, the way you interpret the statement:

(a) the company can record a specific call, and subsequently may or may not use it for training purposes only, quality purposes only, or both.

(b) For the customer, it's not enough to want to record it for quality purposes only. And the word "training" can only occur for the purposes of "operating a company training people", not for individuals.

That's reading a lot into the words "this call may be recorded for training and quality purposes" that just isn't there.

"Their intention" is no more relevant or important than mine. We're both parties to this agreement. What matters is the wording. As you say, that's pedantic. But agreements can't be based on what's in the mind of one of the parties.

Mellor wrote: »

The restriction only comes about because you are trying to reinterpret it as "you may". Again, you're interpretation, not theirs.

Why does the company's interpretation carry more weight than my interpretation, or more weight than what the words actually say? The words "this call may be recorded" applies to anybody. Me, the company, whatever organisation the company hires for marketing purposes, an external vendor hired to manage their communications systems. If they want to remove me from the scope of the statement, we need to agree to that or they need to be able to refer to a law that does so.

Edited to add: That last point is probably why it's phrased as it is. They could be specific and say "Company X may record...". But they don't. They want to leave things open so the conversation can be recorded by the company, vendors acting on their behalf, private investigators they may hire, whoever, with minimal exposure to legal/privacy risk. But that works both ways. It leaves the door open for me to record it too. That's the choice they make.

Mellor

tjhook wrote: »

So, correct me if I've misunderstood, the way you interpret the statement

You misunderstood.

They are using may in the sense of “might happen”.
Your interpretation is a different meaning. “You may do X”
That interpretation might not be possibly in many phrasing’s.

There is no need to change their words like that as one party consent is permitted in Irish law. It’s that simple. The convoluted justification relies on an entirely passive statement. Which might not happen every time. There’s no need.

(a) the company can record a specific call, and subsequently may or may not use it for training purposes only, quality purposes only, or both.

(b) For the customer, it's not enough to want to record it for quality purposes only. And the word "training" can only occur for the purposes of "operating a company training people", not for individuals.

The difference is the company made a statement.
Your hypothetical company did not.

The person this hypothetical company would be recording was not a party to the “may be recorded” message. They haven’t consented or been informed by your hypothetical company.
Additional the company may not be considered a party to the call. So single party permission might not apply.

Bikerman2019

Interesting thread, one of many on this subject, but here is a straight question.

Can I record a call with a company so I have a record of he said/she said, in order to prevent any misunderstandings down the line.

Also, providing I am one of the two people on the call, can I record it even if the other party says "I do not consent"

In theory of course......

Ta very much.

ectoraige

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Interesting thread, one of many on this subject, but here is a straight question.

Can I record a call with a company so I have a record of he said/she said, in order to prevent any misunderstandings down the line.

Also, providing I am one of the two people on the call, can I record it even if the other party says "I do not consent"

In theory of course......

Ta very much.

Yes. Yes. IANAL