Best Call Recorder

[Greg Brady]

WHO CARES!!!! Would someone just answer this guys question!

[setabs]

It was answered multiple times. I would suggest trying the programs out before calling CS.

Originally Posted by a1jatt

Resco audio recorder

Originally Posted by rainfreak

Actually it is illegal in most states in the U.S., however there are a small handful that could care less. An important thing to note that whether it is illegal in the state that you are in or not, nothing recorded over the phone (without expressed consent from the other caller) is inadmissable in court.

That said, Resco Audio Recorder does a good job...

Originally Posted by tmz

Look here , Hope that Helps, Thanks T M Z

http://forum.ppcgeeks.com/showthread...light=recorder


http://forum.ppcgeeks.com/showthread...light=recorder

Originally Posted by setabs

Check with you state laws first. I know someone that lost their job for recording phone calls on his land line in his house. The feds got involved and he was let go. Definately say to the csr that you are also recording the conversation. Have them clearly pronounce their name what call center they are from and maybe an employee id of some sort. i would test the sound quality with a friend before hand though.

Try this program it looks promising. http://1800message.com/products.aspx

And with the whole legal thing its better to be safe than sorry. So check the laws.

[ruckstande]

Why is this so complicated? Every company I call that records conversations just says that they will and doesn't ask for my consent in any form.

[aammiitt]

well my logic is:

One would record a phone conversation just so it can be held as a proof.(I am not getting into legal or illgeal yet).

Now.HYPOTHETICALLY...Lets say I record a convo...use it as an evidence, ok? The court says both the parties needed to be aware of convo being recorded...to which i say (i lie)..YES...I made the opposite party aware before we started talking !!

Ofcourse...the other party would jump off the seat and say NO...I would say "prove it that I didnt tell u" ! Now it's my word against their's !
Conversly..lets assume I actually made the other party aware of recording bef the convo..and what if they deny flat out? What is the evidence?
(No I am not refering to the part in the recording..that says..." XYZ I am recording..do I have ur consent" )

In which case I still have a solid ground as to begin with I am the one trying to prove a point in the court w/ the recording as proof.
Just like shooting someone w/ a gun is a crime...but what if u do it in self defense? There was NO other way but to shoot the other guy...wouldnt the court atleast listen to why I shot?

it's a classic case of putting a label and concluding that it's illegal. Technically it is not so well defined and clear.

k...just exhausted my 2 cents !

[rainfreak]

Originally Posted by aammiitt

well my logic is:

One would record a phone conversation just so it can be held as a proof.(I am not getting into legal or illgeal yet).

Now.HYPOTHETICALLY...Lets say I record a convo...use it as an evidence, ok? The court says both the parties needed to be aware of convo being recorded...to which i say (i lie)..YES...I made the opposite party aware before we started talking !!

Ofcourse...the other party would jump off the seat and say NO...I would say "prove it that I didnt tell u" ! Now it's my word against their's !
Conversly..lets assume I actually made the other party aware of recording bef the convo..and what if they deny flat out? What is the evidence?
(No I am not refering to the part in the recording..that says..." XYZ I am recording..do I have ur consent" )

In which case I still have a solid ground as to begin with I am the one trying to prove a point in the court w/ the recording as proof.
Just like shooting someone w/ a gun is a crime...but what if u do it in self defense? There was NO other way but to shoot the other guy...wouldnt the court atleast listen to why I shot?

it's a classic case of putting a label and concluding that it's illegal. Technically it is not so well defined and clear.

k...just exhausted my 2 cents !

That's a great theory but I assure that when you go to court you will be told that, for the call to be legally recorded and admissable in court, that you have to have proof that the caller was made aware of the recording.

The burden of proof rests with you because you are the one doing the recording. So if you do not have on the recording that the caller acknowledges the fact that the call is being recordered, or continued to speak after being alerted to the recording process, you have failed to prove it to the courts. Therefore it will not be admissable.

Not to mention that now that modifying digital files is so easy, the court typically requires a digital watermark on the recording to prove that it has not been modified or altered in anyway. Otherwise, even if you go through all the stages of warning a caller that the call is being recorded, the call may still be inadmissable.

[rainfreak]

Originally Posted by ruckstande

Why is this so complicated? Every company I call that records conversations just says that they will and doesn't ask for my consent in any form.

They don't have to ask your consent as much as alert you to the recording process. Once you have been alerted of the process and you continue to speak, you are providing expressed consent by the mere fact that you continue to speak with the other party.

[aammiitt]

Originally Posted by rainfreak

That's a great theory but I assure that when you go to court you will be told that, for the call to be legally recorded and admissable in court, that you have to have proof that the caller was made aware of the recording.

The burden of proof rests with you because you are the one doing the recording. So if you do not have on the recording that the caller acknowledges the fact that the call is being recordered, or continued to speak after being alerted to the recording process, you have failed to prove it to the courts. Therefore it will not be admissable.

Not to mention that now that modifying digital files is so easy, the court typically requires a digital watermark on the recording to prove that it has not been modified or altered in anyway. Otherwise, even if you go through all the stages of warning a caller that the call is being recorded, the call may still be inadmissable.

I see ur point....but really the whole legal thing is such a self defeating point..I mean...whoz gonna talk what u wanna hear or record after being aware that u r recording lol.

O well...so...where was I....yea...btw which is the best call recorder?
*wink* lol - cheers!

[aammiitt]

Originally Posted by rainfreak

They don't have to ask your consent as much as alert you to the recording process. Once you have been alerted of the process and you continue to speak, you are providing expressed consent by the mere fact that you continue to speak with the other party.

very valid point . Another funny scenario wld be..record other person..then in the end..in same convo.."oh btw..u were being recorded..just forgot to mention earlier...but hey...u have been notified" !

[petermg]

Please search the threads before filling them up with useless arguments. The resources disclosing the legalities of this have been posted. No need to debate it. Search the forum and read.

[rainfreak]

Originally Posted by petermg

Please search the threads before filling them up with useless arguments. The resources disclosing the legalities of this have been posted. No need to debate it. Search the forum and read.

How are we "filling them up" with a "useless argument" if our discussion is in one thread? Especially when it is in a thread discussing the very same subject?

Thanks for your "useful" post to this discussion...