I'm stumped. I'm not so sure what is the answer to your question. I'll do some research and get back to you if I got an decent answer. You should email the people at Discover Card as they probably could help you..

Legal in NY state to record people on the phone without their knowledge or consent..

Wish I'd known that years ago when someone called "Jason Lane" called here at 8am every day till my husband answered finally one day... I was downstairs and still remember the yelling that ensued... I heard my husband say "hello?" then "no she's not, who is this?" then a minute later he bellowed "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, AM I F*CKING RETARDED? WHO THE H*LL ARE YOU TO CALL MY HOUSE AT 8AM AND TELL ME THAT I"M A "F*CKING RETARD"?? DON"T YOU EVER CALL MY HOUSE AGAIN".

Then he came downstairs and said someone called asking for me and when my husband asked who they were they said "what are you, f*cking retarded? I just told you, my name is Jason Lane" and when my husband said something about calling the house every day at 8am he replied "and I'm going to keep calling you every day at 8am"..

Luckily my phone company had an automated number to dial if you wanted to report the most recent call as harassing..I used it and never heard from them again..

Still have no idea which CA the guy was calling for, but I suspect it's whomever got the default judgement on me by serving an address I hadn't lived in for six years. Grrr..

Anyway, um. yeah you can do it in NY..

"New York N.Y. Penal Law 250.00(1) It is lawful to record a telephone conversation if one is a party to the conversation or has received the consent of a party to the communication. Accord People v. Lasher, 447 N.E.2d. 70, 71 (N.Y. 1983)."..

And they prove that you recordered it how? Unless you tell them they can't prove you did...

I always wondered about this. I called my amex blue toll free number and a man answered the phone with a heavy eastern tone and said his name was Chris...

If their attorney has 3 brain cells to rub together it's going to be obvious that you recorded the call when you submit a word-for-word transcription..

Unless you plan to lie under oath, how else would you explain it?..

When you were in HIGH SCHOOL and/or COLLEGE you took notes (pencil or pen and notebook paper) that was 100% of what the teacher said???.

THAT IS AMAZING..

Dont do it word-for-word. Just the substantial points, then color in around them...

It is highly recommended that you make sure both states (yours and the CA's or OC's or Whoever's) are 1-party states.

This post has been edited by tryn2getup: 26 January 2010 - 10:29 PM..

The following was cited from an article regarding the alleged recordings of phone conversations made my tiger woods mistress (Uchitel):.

"When it comes to illegal wiretapping, the law is governed by individual states. Thirty eight states require only one-party consent to tape a call. But 12 states require the consent of both parties. Wiretapping without either party€™s consent is illegal in all 50 states under state and federal law..

As it turns out, under New York law, calls can be recorded with one-party consent. Therefore, Uchitel did not violate New York law if she failed to disclose the recording and made the call from her Manhattan home..

But Florida is a two-party state. Therefore, she would have violated Florida law. If she made the call from Los Angeles, she could also face prosecution there as well..

Calls that cross state lines can become complicated legal issues, according to legal experts. While there is a federal wiretap law, it cedes jurisdiction on issues of one- or two-party consent to the individual states..

In the Tripp case, Maryland, where she lived, is a two-party state. The District of Columbia where she placed the call to Lewinsky is a one-party jurisdiction. Yet she was still.

Prosecuted. Therefore, Florida could conceivably issue a warrant for Uchitel€™s arrest..

"Attorneys routinely advise clients to assume the stricter law would apply.".

Cited from - http://www.theimproper.com/?p=1665..

A written limited cease and desist and be done with them......

You can't break Florida law if you're not in Florida...if they pulled the "it's crossing state lines" garbage, then simply use the Federal law which allows for one party recording....

OR, let them try to prosecute you in Florida...and extradite you to there...at their expense of course...and then have it tossed by any judge.

Since there was no crime committed in their state.....

Besides...every CA that I've talked to on the phone (and virtually every business) says "This call may be monitored or recorded"...which is giving permission.

As for Lewinsky, she was prosecuted for a different reason, which we won't get into here....

As for CA attorneys having three brain cells to rub together...well, I have yet to meet one that would fit that criteria..

I have the upmost respect for Pryan67 as he seems to be helpfull, good intentions, more knowledgeable tham me on a variety of topics relating to credit repair and usually accurate. Additionally, it is not my intention to seem arguable but I feel due to the fact that violation of these laws are felonies with typically both criminal and civil penalties - I must respectfully disagree..

Please read the article at the following website it describes how some states will allow you to be tried in that state by another states law as well as cites actuall cases where this has happened. This website was provided by an administrator and it has a lot of pertanent information regarding the legalities of wiretapping. Also check out the links in the left hand menu navigation as it gives state statutes and other information that is equally valuable..

Also, businesses are allowed to record for quality assurance purposes which is a legal loophole (for the CA) and as far as I can tell if I opened up my own business (with my own employees) to negotiate or request DV from the CA's on your behalf I could record their calls as long as they were not of a personal nature and were being utilized to train or assure the quality of service of my employees (not that the CA would even talk to me but the point is thats how they get away with it)..

Please check out the site - it will help clarify why this is a grey area and the reasons why it is reccomended you err on the side of caution which is a side that many people quickly disregard on this topic...

Curious, if you say to someone once they get on the phone, I am recording this phone call, is it then legal to record? regardless of which state you are in?..

I think iot would depend on the legal wording of that states statute.....

For example:.

GA:.

Secretly recording or listening to a conversation held in a private place, without the consent of all parties, whether carried out orally or by wire or electronic means, is a felony invasion of privacy under Georgia law. Ga. Code Ann. 16-11-62..

In this case if you announce it it is not secretly recording..

NC:.

Without the consent of at least one party to the communication, it is a felony to willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or get any other person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication or to use any device, which transmits by radio, wire, or cable, to do so. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-287(a)(1)..

In this case the word concent is used so if I was having a conversation with you than either you or I would have to agree with the person recording it (or be the person recording it - since you wouldn't disagree with yourself) for it to be legal.

It is worth noting that GA is a two party state which uses the wording secretly recording because both parties are required to have knowledge or to consent - in this case having knowledge is likely considered concent because the other party could simply hang up. NC on the other hand is a one party state which uses the word concent because as pointed out if you are recording you more than likely concent to the recording by default and if a third party is concenting than the third party must ask one of the two participants for concent since the conversation involves the two of them and simply informing the two parties having the conversation that it would be recorded is seemingly evassive...

I'm pretty sure you can tape the call regardless, but you just wouldn't be able to use it as evidence in a court of law if you are dealing with a 2 party state. You can use a transcript though.

I've posted a few times now on how PA is a one party state and yet, their own courts went with the 2 party state winning.

It just depends on whether or not the 2 party state is going to prosecute you for taping without their knowledge (if they haven't said that they were recording). The whole thing with that though, if it's a CA, you obviously will have more on them than just ONE phone call to prosecute them so it wouldn't be worth it for them to come after you for taping.....

This post has been edited by cfj503: 28 January 2010 - 12:39 PM..

Ok beli..

I have a CA out of GA that likes to call me 2x a month..

Each time they ask for me. I confirm it's me..

Then they ask for the last four digits of my social to confirm it's me. I refuse..

They refuse to say the name of their company (although a quick google search of their ph# while on the line with them is easy enough)..

I claim due to the FDCPCA, they must identify themselves..

They claim due to the FDCPA, they can not divulge information to a 3rd party and that is their way of confirming it's actually me..

Stalemate..

Rinse and repeat 2-3 times a month. Well, until last month Then I recorded them, told them I was recording them, she flipped out on me and that was the last I've heard from them.

But back to the issue of each party claiming they have FDCPA rights..... (and I can argue both side)... which party is at fault?..

Businesses aren't exempt from the laws...in a two party state, the business MUST notify the person that they're being recorded....

If they are recording...they're giving tacit permission to be recorded by the consumer.

Again, I don't know of ANY case where an individual was prosecuted by a one party state for recording someone that was in a two party state....

California judges have ZERO authority to enforce New York laws...absolutely NONE.....

I don't even see the debate to be had here. Their BS of hiding behind 3rd party communication doesn't apply because you're not asking them to provide info about the debt that is prohibited by 1692c. You're simply asking for the name of their employer in accordance with 1692b which says if the person that answers the phone asks for the name of the employer, they are required to provide it..

I don't see any contradiction here at all, but now I'm curious so I'm going to do some digging...

This is true. Even had collectors admit to that. *gasp* lol...

Businesses are not immune to the law not would I ever imply that they are however, Federal law permits businesses to monitor phone calls that are business related when the monitoring is part of the ordinary course of business..

Also, the facts are:.

Fact: conflict of laws, choice of laws... do allow one state to charge you with another states laws if the laws are more restringant and it is determined that that state has a stake in the conflict..

Fact: I have provided numerous references to statutory law and other research demonstrating that The law is often not as clear as you would like it to be and if you are going to call from a one party state to a two party state you should either :.

- Assume the stricter of the two laws apply or.

- Contact an Atty. (who will most likely tell you not to do it).

Fact: In most states if you violate wiretapping laws there are both civil and criminal penalties meaning you can be fined and go to jail (even if you were following the advice of someone else who recommended you ignore the laws of the two party state because they do not apply to you).

Fact: If I commit a felony from state "A" that involves state "B" and at any time in the future (within the SoL) cross into state "B", I can be arrested if that state is aware of the crime and my presence..

Fact: (worst-case scenario) If you violate state "B's" wire tapping law from state "A", you have committed a federal offense (committing a felony from across state lines is a federal offense) and if the feds are notified you are suddenly in a world of $hit..

Fact: It is never a bad idea to contact an Atty. when acting in a manner that may result in the committing of a felony or that you think may result in the committing of a felony.

My opinion:.

- KISS/JDDI - keep it simple stupid/ just don't do it [If you absolutely must, call a Atty..

- I have not seen it in case law does not make it untrue and is a poor rebuttal to the submittance of statutory law.

As far as case law go's:.

I have done more than enough research in this area and turned up enough reasons, and asked enough people to support my point that you should protect yourself from possible violations of law that might result in serious fines or jail time by contacting an Atty. Or assuming the stricter of two laws applies.

This is not a definitive argument: you are not breaking the law, will not go to jail, or receive a fine because:.

- You have not seen case law on it yet. [I have seen references to it but have not looked for it but even if we assume there is none since I am not going to spend the time looking for it; remember this, case law starts out somewhere].

- you claim (without supporting the claim) that one state cannot sue you with another states laws (even though the claim goes against the conflict of laws or the choice of laws principles).

Additionally, (with the upmost respect) If you want case law to prove the point - look it up; but I would not recommend one ignore the possibilities and not contact a lawyer because the person recommending you adhere to the stricter laws or contact an Atty. did not do the research for you and did not provide case law. (By the way, I have never seen case law that supported ignorance as an excuse for violating the law.).

As far as California v.s. New York:.

I do not know if California has the right to apply New York law it would depend on if New York had a stake in the case and what California's rules were regarding their conflict of laws or their choice of laws. State rules and regs. vary from state to state and sometimes they vary within the state from moment to moment or judge to judge; this is why I would contact a lawyer before possibly violating the law (even if I did not believe in the law)..

IMHO:.

From the research I have done and the references to case laws I have come across (references only) I do not believe that Oregon would allow PA to apply their state law in Oregon. Nonetheless, I am not about to make a recommendation that the individual record based on that opinion because I am not an Atty. and because (worst case scenario) the feds could still be called for violating PA's state law from OR. Additionally, as I have stated before, this is a very gray area with all sorts of laws that could apply; some of which could directly conflict with the wire tapping laws of that state. For an example, since you used California as an example I will point out one of their laws, in California both parties must be aware of the conversation being recorded because it is a two party state. However, if I commit a felony (for example I threaten your family) than you can record the conversation without the police being a party and not be in violation of state law.

And furthermore I am not an Atty. for your state. There are laws that are not even associated with the wiretapping laws of that state that affect when and who and from where you can record.....

So I will say again, if you are going to record from a one party state a conversation taking place across state lines to a two party state; assume the stricter of the two laws apply or contact an Atty..

If you decide to record the conversation anyway... do so at your own risk. Even if you violate the law, it does not mean that you will or can be prosecuted (each state may very see an Atty.), but if you are - the consequences could be greater than you think....

Remember, your best course of action is to probably KISS/JDDI..

I'm not an expert this is area of law, but this particular comment jumped out at me..

If you (state B) are calling in the Feds to prosecute a state law that was violated, but there is a federal law on the books that addresses the exact matter you as asking them to prosecute, wouldn't that mean the feds would prosecute based on the federal law?.

For example, we have federal laws against counterfeiting. Let's say you are running a counterfeiting operation in Colorado from your home in New Mexico. Let's say Colorado has a law on the books that make counterfeiting a crime punishible by a $50,000 fine and 5 years in state prison. Federal laws make it punishable by a $250,000 fine and 12 years in federal prison..

So Colorado wants to prosecute under their code but they call in the feds because the crime happened across state lines. Don't you suppose the feds would prosecute under their own law since their deals with the exact same crime?..

The feds would not come after you for wire tapping, you didn't break federal law here (federal law is ine party concent that yields to state law).

The feds would come after you for the federal offense you have commited....

Committing a felony from across state lines is a federal offense in it's self..

And the one party state won't come after you for violating a two party state law either....

The two party state also has no jurisdiction over you while you're in state A..

Are they? I thought you should use your real name and real name of the company when calling because you are dealing with financial matters..

I think you are only allowed to use aliases with customer service or sales, but in collection always your real name...

Collectors definitely do not use their real names when calling people. Where on earth are you getting your information? It doesn't matter what they're dealing with. Anyone can use any name they want to as long as they are not doing it to commit fraud. It's perfectly legal...

Man, I thought it was a little strange that everyone named "Mr. Cash" worked in collections...

1.) The federal law allows bussinesses to record for quality assurance and training purposes.....

2.) Federal law yields to state law in the case of wiretapping one (party vs 2 party).....

3.) Thanks to the Internet and other technologies you can break a law when you are not in that state and if the offense involves or affects that state you can be charged for it, please research conflict of laws or choice of laws before you repeatedly state that you cannot break the law of a state you are not in when in truth the fact of the matter is you can..

4.) Committing a felony from across state lines is a felony in it's self. What do I mean by this?.... Example:.

I call and record you from a one party state and you live in a two party state; during this call I get you to confess to something I can use in a civil action lawsuite. This means that I used electronic means to violate state law in your state from across state lines and if this violation of law was a felony (which it illegal wire tapping almost always is) than the following can occur:.

A.) My evidence is thrown out because it was obtained both illegally and under false pretences.

B.) As you have stated - your state could try extradite me to your state and try me and maybe it would get thrown out.....

C.) (or better yet) The FEDS can charge me for committing a felony from across state lines. This is an action that does not require me to be in the state that considers my wiretap a felony. That is the entire point of this rule. The feds are not trying me for an illegal wire tap so federal law will never enter into this. The feds are not trying me for breaking my state law or committing a felony from my state so my state law will never enter into this. The Feds are charging me with committing a felony in your state while I was physically in my state; again, thanks to the wonderful advances in technology, internet gambling, etc...

The entire purpose of this is to prevent people from using electronic means to violate or get arround certain state laws by focusing there efforts from beyond state lines. These rules are real and do exist, why do you think you are required to pay state sales tax when you purchase things from across state lines over the internet? Why do you think gambling businesses that reside across state lines cannot violate state prohibitions on gambling even though the business has never stepped foot in the state. These rules like the one I am talking about exist to prevent people from maliciously hiding behind a states boarders to accomplish something that would otherwise be illegal.

Furthermore, the Feds are not trying you for wiretapping so they do not need to apply federal law, instead they are trying you for violating this states law while hiding behind this states boarders and in fact the only requirements for this to occur are that the state in which the act was a felony must have a stake or vested interest. (I.E. - If I preform an act that is legal from state a and this act affects only state a than state b,c,d,e,[ect]... can not request the feds try me for breaking there state laws simply because they do not have a vested interest..

Here is another example:.

You and I live in state A and reside very close to state B. We are involved in a vehicle accident across state lines in which I rearend your vehicle. In our state the laws are clear and rearending your vehicle is an act of "automatic fault" making me responsable. In the state the accident occurs at you are also cited for an equipment failure when you admit that your break lights do not work. Guess what, by conflict of laws or choice of laws principles (depending on our states rules) If I take you to court and because the accident occured across state lines (giving the other state a vested interest) I can sue you and probably win even though our own law makes me automatically at fault for following too closse..

You keep stating that you can not be charged with another states laws and have cited no supporting evidence. In response to that:.

1.) Yes you can be charged in your state by another states laws if that state is determined to have a vested interest and your state allows such practices (please research conflict of laws as they apply state to state and/or choice of laws principles.).

2.) If the feds try you, they will not be trying you for breaking that states law but rather for committing a felony (in that state) from accross state lines (from your state), which may seem like arguing scemantics except for the following differences..

- this is a serious crime intended to prevent people from hiding behind juristictional barriers..

- This law applies to felonies, which by deffinition are serious violations of crimes and in the oppinion of the state in which the felony was committed the crime is considered serious or it would not be a felony..

- Your claim that you did not violate that states law and that the state would have to extradite you at their cost and charge you becomes mute as soon as the following considerations are made. 1.) the feds do not have to extradite you because you are in their juristiction 2.) because the feds are not charging you with violating wiretapping laws no federal considerations or considerations of your state laws will be made and 3.) since the feds are charging you with committing a felony from across state lines they only need to consider if the state where the alleged felony occured has a vested interest [were they or anyone they represent i.e. citizens/companies directly and adversely affected - ummm yes they were] and whether by that states laws you committed the felony [ummm yes you did]..

The only problem is that the Feds have to be interrested in trying the case..

The probably wouldnt be, but than again......

So lets figure that you always have the possibility of the evidence being thrown out even if you do not get tried in any state (bad deal but not devistating).....

You could get tried in that state if you ever visited or somebody really wanted to push the issue and have you extradited... (not likely but could result in jail time).

Under the conflict of laws or choice of laws principles your state could agree to charge you under that states laws (it is legal look it up - and could result in jail time).

The Feds could try you for committing a felony across state lines (not likely - but again could result in jail time).

Or.

You could use the recording in court and win.

Getting the evidence thrown out is probably most likely and winning your case is probably next in line.

However, out of the five possibilities one of them is good, four of them are bad, 3 of those could result in jail time, and at least 3 of them could result in serious fines.

This gives us two basic options:.

1.) Tell the person questioning the legality to record to either assume the stricter law applies or see a lawyer.....

2.) Tell the person it's ok to record because nobody will pursue conflict of laws, choice of laws, a request for extradition, or trial for committing a felony from across state laws because a judge would with out a doubt %100 of the time throw the case out and laugh in their face even though a felony is seen as a serious crime..

Now I know that lawyers are bad and evil and not so great stuff but......

C'mon.....

Really???.

I mean Really Really?????..

Every bit of advice I've seen on this says to assume the more restrictive set of laws applies. There is certainly a case to be made that the less-restrictive federal law should apply,- but I'm not sure the average consumer trying to deal with a violating CA wants to fight that battle on top of it all...

Unless there is a law against it and IMO, this pretty much covers it:.

How could a false name possibly be permitted in the presence of this section?..

That's an interesting point, esp. in light of the "least sophisticated consumer" overlay through which the FDCPA is interpreted. The word "any" would seem to include the collectors name..

I don't believe I've ever seen a court case addressing the issue...

I haven't either, which is why I posed the question.

The CA isn't allowed to lie about the name of their company. Why should the same standard not apply to the individual collector?..

If you were a collector, would you want people to know your real identity? It's rather like porn stars..

This post has been edited by JunkBuyersWorstNightmare: 04 February 2010 - 07:51 PM..

They chose the profession. I'm sure there's a lot of times public servants wished people didn't know their names either, but it goes with the territory...