Call Recording: How to disable the announcement but keep recording?

  • 3
  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
I would like to keep the system wide call recording feature, however, I do not want any type of automated announcement telling the caller that the coversation is being recorded.
Photo of abelaguilar

abelaguilar

  • 100 Points 100 badge 2x thumb

Posted 4 years ago

  • 3
  • 3
Photo of Andrew Pike

Andrew Pike

  • 90 Points 75 badge 2x thumb
Your best bet is to record a custom greeting and make it a fraction of a second and blank (silence). Of course, you do want to make sure that you follow your states laws which vary.
(Edited)
Photo of abelaguilar

abelaguilar

  • 100 Points 100 badge 2x thumb
Thanks yes I thought of that but figured ring central had an on off button.
Photo of Rosa Gomez

Rosa Gomez

  • 110 Points 100 badge 2x thumb
is there a way to get rid of the beeps when pressing the *9 to start recording, what are you all doing to avoid caller hearing the beeps?
(Edited)
Photo of RC-Installer

RC-Installer, Champion

  • 26,844 Points 20k badge 2x thumb
You cant record people with out notification.  it is the LAW.

that is why there is no option to tun this off

Thanks

Chuck
Certified Ring Central Installer
ckfuscone@yahoo.com
Photo of Michael Kent

Michael Kent

  • 60 Points
Absolutely incorrect.  It depends on whether your state is a "One party notification state" or a "Two party notification" state.  In the former, only one party need be informed that the conversation is being recorded.  In the latter, both parties must have knowledge that the conversation is being recorded.  Check your local laws for your state.
Photo of Jan Ferguson, Channel Partner

Jan Ferguson, Channel Partner, Champion

  • 30,608 Points 20k badge 2x thumb
Here is a site which shows which states are one party notification states vs. two party notification states.

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

With the above stated...here are some guidelines regarding interstate calls where a caller from a one party notification state might call someone living in a two party notification state. Got this information from http://www.vegress.com/index.php/can-i-record-calls-in-my-state

Interstate phone calls

In light of the differing state laws governing electronic recording of conversations between private parties, journalists are advised to err on the side of caution when recording or disclosing an interstate telephone call. The safest strategy is to assume that the stricter state law will apply.

For example, a reporter located in the District of Columbia who records a telephone conversation without the consent of a party located in Maryland would not violate District of Columbia law, but could be liable under Maryland law. A court located in the District of Columbia may apply Maryland law, depending on its “conflict of laws” rules. Therefore, an aggrieved party may choose to file suit in either jurisdiction, depending on which law is more favorable to the party’s claim.

In one case, a New York trial court was asked to apply the Pennsylvania wiretap law — which requires consent of all parties — to a call placed by a prostitute in Pennsylvania to a man in New York. Unlike the Pennsylvania wiretap statute, the New York and federal statutes require the consent of only one party. The call was recorded with the woman’s consent by reporters for The Globe, a national tabloid newspaper. The court ruled that the law of the state where the injury occurred, New York, should apply. (Krauss v. Globe International)

The Supreme Court of California in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney applied California wiretap law to a company located in Georgia who routinely recorded business phone calls with its clients in California. California law requires all party consent to record any telephone calls, while Georgia law requires only one party consent. The state’s high court, applying choice of law principles, reasoned that the failure to apply California law would “impair California’s interest in protecting the degree of privacy afforded to California residents by California law more severely than the application of California law would impair any interests of the State of Georgia.”

In another case involving Pennsylvania law, four employees of the Times Leader, a newspaper in Wilkes-Barre, were arrested after they printed a transcript of a telephone conversation between a columnist in Pennsylvania and a murder suspect living in Virginia that was recorded without the suspect’s permission. The Virginia and federal statutes allow one party to record a conversation, while Pennsylvania, as discussed above, requires the consent of all parties. The man asked prosecutors to charge the journalists under the Pennsylvania law. The court eventually dismissed the charges against the newspaper staff — but on the unrelated ground that the suspect had no expectation of privacy during his telephone interview with the columnist. (Pennsylvania v. Duncan)

Federal law may apply when the conversation is between parties who are in different states, although it is unsettled whether a court will hold in a given case that federal law “pre-empts” state law. In Duncan, the newspaper argued that the federal law should pre-empt the state statutes, because the telephone call crossed state lines, placing it under federal jurisdiction. However, in that case, the court did not address the pre-emption issue. Moreover, as noted above, either state may choose to enforce its own laws.

(Edited)
Photo of Robert Jerina

Robert Jerina

  • 2,390 Points 2k badge 2x thumb
This is wrong, Chuck. Different states have different laws. Ohio for example, is a one party notification recording state which means only one of the people in the party need to be notified about a call that is being recorded. 

I want to turn this off because we already have a message on our phone menu stating that the call may be recorded anyways. I want to turn it off because of the services our company requires, we often need to record phone calls with customers and they cannot know about it being recorded because of this service we provide.
Photo of Mike

Mike, Official Rep

  • 91,028 Points 50k badge 2x thumb
If you would like to have the ability to turn this off, please visit the following "idea" topic and click the VOTE button: Call Recording: Turn Off Announcement
(Edited)
Photo of Dustin Showers

Dustin Showers, Champion

  • 3,090 Points 3k badge 2x thumb
We found out In NJ, only one party needs to be aware that the call is being recorded.  Pretty interesting.  we still keep the notification on as a courtesy, but apparently, we only needed our staff to sign an agreement that we were recording.
Photo of Jan Ferguson, Channel Partner

Jan Ferguson, Channel Partner, Champion

  • 30,544 Points 20k badge 2x thumb
But be careful in case you receive a call from someone in some other state that requires two-party consent. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Unless your business only does business within New Jersey, you might want/need to keep the audio notification active.
(Edited)
Photo of Robert Jerina

Robert Jerina

  • 2,390 Points 2k badge 2x thumb
But they are calling to NJ, which does NOT have that law. The NJ law applies to people calling NJ. If you were calling one of these states however, they would need notification of such.
Photo of Jan Ferguson, Channel Partner

Jan Ferguson, Channel Partner, Champion

  • 30,544 Points 20k badge 2x thumb
Robert,

That's not accurate. Each state law, as well as Federal law, for each caller must be obeyed. So if someone from Florida called you in New Jersey, they would have to consent to the recording of your conversation...and be notified of such.

From Summary of Consent Requirements for Taping Telephone Conversations located at http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

"Remember that unless the caller and the called party are in the same state - then only that state's law would apply - the interstate call actually implicates three bodies of law, federal law, the law of the calling-party's state, and the law of the called- party's state. Each law must be obeyed."
(Edited)