Seems to me that the conversation remains a confidential one.
I’m going to assume you’re acting in good faith for one more response. I’m going to assume you didn’t actually read 632(c). I’m going to parse out all the language that refers to non-pertinent circumstances. And I’m going to make it big and bold so you understand that it is actually important for you to read this:
For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” … excludes a communication … in any … circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be … recorded.
We have a call where one party has said “This call may be recorded”. A circumstance has arisen in which the parties may reasonably expect this call to be recorded. This call is now specifically excluded from classification as a “confidential communication”.
Seems to me that the conversation remains a confidential one.
I don’t think you’re stupid, and I don’t think you’re acting in bad faith. I assume that you didn’t actually read or comprehend what I previously posted. Moving forward, I will not be making that same assumption again. As soon as the parties are aware that the conversation may be recorded, this particular statute no longer applies.
Why is there any clause about consent, if consent is never needed?
Who said consent is never needed? Certainly not I. Certainly not the law. The idea that “consent is never needed” arose entirely within your own understanding; within your own mind.
This is an eavesdropping statute. This law applies primarily to third parties, not actual parties to the conversation.
Adam and Bob are having a private conversation in Bob’s office, but Mallory has placed a voice recorder under the desk. Mallory is not a party to the conversation. Neither Adam nor Bob have any reason to believe anyone is recording. This is still a confidential conversation, even though it is actually being recorded. Adam and Bob would both have to consent, or Mallory can be charged under this law.
Saying “I assume you were replying in good faith but next time I won’t” while being a patronising twat is not, in fact, replying in good faith. Goodbye forever.
I’m going to assume you’re acting in good faith for one more response. I’m going to assume you didn’t actually read 632(c). I’m going to parse out all the language that refers to non-pertinent circumstances. And I’m going to make it big and bold so you understand that it is actually important for you to read this:
For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” … excludes a communication … in any … circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be … recorded.
We have a call where one party has said “This call may be recorded”. A circumstance has arisen in which the parties may reasonably expect this call to be recorded. This call is now specifically excluded from classification as a “confidential communication”.
I don’t think you’re stupid, and I don’t think you’re acting in bad faith. I assume that you didn’t actually read or comprehend what I previously posted. Moving forward, I will not be making that same assumption again. As soon as the parties are aware that the conversation may be recorded, this particular statute no longer applies.
Who said consent is never needed? Certainly not I. Certainly not the law. The idea that “consent is never needed” arose entirely within your own understanding; within your own mind.
This is an eavesdropping statute. This law applies primarily to third parties, not actual parties to the conversation.
Adam and Bob are having a private conversation in Bob’s office, but Mallory has placed a voice recorder under the desk. Mallory is not a party to the conversation. Neither Adam nor Bob have any reason to believe anyone is recording. This is still a confidential conversation, even though it is actually being recorded. Adam and Bob would both have to consent, or Mallory can be charged under this law.
Saying “I assume you were replying in good faith but next time I won’t” while being a patronising twat is not, in fact, replying in good faith. Goodbye forever.
👍