Recording Yourself Should Be Treated Like an Illegal Wiretap

[Nobdy]

To cbg:

Thank you for properly qualifying your comments with "if that is what the OP has in mind". Actually, in my case, that's not the question. For me, all I wanted to do was take reliable (verbal) "notes" on the phone call, because the unrecorded party refused my request to record the conversation. So, the recording can be used as evidence of MY words during the phone call.

In general, I agree the recording cannot be used to authenticate the unrecorded party's words. But in some case, that might be possible. Namely, if you can get the unrecorded party to agree (in email, say) that the phone call was uncontentious, ahead of time, before the existence of the one-sided recording were known to the unrecorded party (before legal proceedings were initiated, say), and if the one-sided recording were explicit enough (say by always repeating the unrecorded party's words), then the recording does indeed have evidentiary potential.

To Mr. Knowitall:

Yes, "really".

Well, let's consider that the question has arisen at the Supreme Court multiple times, and those worthies deemed it important enough to address in published reporters. And probably they have a prettiy good insight into the importance of such things.

Furthermore, there actually is a non-trivial question of illegality here. Namely, suppose the unrecorded party's words "leaked" out of the handset slightly, to the extent of being unintentionally recorded as "noise" on the recording, which forensic techiques could recover. Does that then count as an illegal recording of the non-consenting party, or not?

(Incidentally, it would help if you were a little less condescending about things you don't understand.)

[cbg]

With all due respect, it would appear that you are the one who does not understand.

[Nobdy]

Say more. Enlighten me.

[souperdave]

For starters, such a thing would not be admissable in any sort of court, except for maybe "Judge Judy". You could have the Sesame Street Hotline on the other end for all anyone knows. And the notion of repeating, or asking 'baited' questions, is equally as ludicrous.

Furthermore, if anything "leaked" out of the other side of the conversation, or the 'white noise' was forensically deciphered, then you'd be right back at the two-party consent situation. The other party simply did not consent to any sort of recording.

So there ya are. Consider yourself enlightened.

[cbg]

Your "reliable verbal notes" are nothing of the kind. You could be saying, "Jack, did you just say you murdered Mrs. Jones?" when in actual fact you were talking to Sam who is saying, "What the **** are you talking about?" at the other end of the phone.

[Mr. Knowitall]

I understand that people will come in here, spouting complete nonsense and acting as if their delusions and the law are one and the same. That's probably the one class of poster for whom I won't restrain my condescension.

[Nobdy]

Oh really? So, what you're saying is that NO "notes" of any kind (including written) are admissible in any court, "because they can be faked". That's clearly idiotic.

And, what's the problem with repeating (for clarification), or asking "baited" questions (trying to get the other side to agree with you)? That sort of thing happens all the time, in all kinds of conversations. Why should it all of a sudden be forbidden activity just because a sound-recorder is running in the room?

And, your point about the other party "simply not consenting" is equally stupid, depending on the exact law in the competent jurisdiction (which is why I threw the question open to discussion). For example, some (probabaly most/all) states require an "intent" to record the other party, which is clearly not the case I'm positing.

You and Mr. Knowitall should open your own hotline. You'd have one another to talk to. And nobody else.

[Nobdy]

BTW, when I wrote "reliable verbal notes", I was referring to notes *I* could rely upon. As I said, no such notes can authenticate the unrecorded party's words.

To the extent the recording provides "evidence", the usual rules of evidence obviously apply. Namely, it's a question of fact, hence up to the judge/jury to weigh, and decide.

[cbg]

I never said a word about written notes of any kind. But if you want to put words in my mouth to make your nonsensical question sound (to you) as if it makes sense, you're only hurting yourself.

[souperdave]

I'll feed the back-trackin' troll one more time............

It's a good thing I don't have feelings, otherwise the "idiot" thing would've probably hurt 'em. But then again, probably not considering the source. How could I feel insulted by some sorta parent's-basement dwelling miscreant who doesn't even know enough to keep from flip-floppin' on the issue they're debating?

Jus' sayin'.

I like how two hours later there's a 'notes are admissable' impression, then followed with a 'the notes are just for me'.

THEN! "Intent to record", really!?! Further proof that you are in fact worthy of the moniker you bestow on others. By that I mean "IDIOT"! Recording intent has absolutely zero bearing in such a circumstance. Simply coming up with a two-party recording, wherein the other party does not express any sort of consent, has absolutely zero admissability if there is, in fact, no expressed consent.

Soooooo, find a mirror, look into it, realize the idiot is staring at you, realize that you are in no way knowledgeable in matters of which you post about, and mind the calls down the steps from your mama.........you're late for dinner. Jus' remember to not go up the steps too fast, all them cheetos and pizza has gone to waist and make ya short of breath if ya exert yourself too much!