Talk:Telephone call recording laws

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Telephone call recording laws article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Two-party Nevada

The citation link for Nevada under the Two-Party section does not mention Nevada. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

I did find other references to it being a two-party state though, http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71711

I'm really not sure what to do with this because I don't make a habit of editing wikipedia. I'm mostly just saying the citation for Nevada is incorrect and does not directly support the claim that it is a two-party state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.62.229 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 102.88.84.80 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion might be because it looks like Nevada has different rules for telephone/over the wire vs in person conversations. It's two party for the former and one for the latter according to https://p2lawyers.com/blog/2016/1/31/is-it-legal-to-record-a-conversation-in-nevada-without-the-other-partys-consent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.198.105.23 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

16.1 Nevada (a two-party law for telephone conversations)

The Nevada Supreme Court held in Lane v. Allstate that an individual must have the consent of all parties in order to lawful record a telephonic communication even if they are a party to said communicationNev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.650; Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998).AsstEd123 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 13:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revise Illinois law references

As per Illinois_wiretapping_law, the law of much controversy in the state of Illinois (referenced multiple times in this article) was declared unconstitutional. Content referencing this state needs updating to reflect this.

204.77.163.244 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section as it is currently mis-states the provisions of the statute vis-à-vis electronic communications, will revise to indicate that Illinois is a two-party state (save for the standard exceptions). PetroPetro (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

Does anyone know what the status of telephone call recording laws are in Japan, and if so, could that be added to the article? Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to improve the classification of US states

Several US states, such as Hawaii and Illinois are listed under both the “two-party” and “one-party” sub-headers. From the descriptions provided in the article about the nuances of the state laws, it seems that their status is disputed and either A) those states should not fall under either list, or B) a disclaimer should be provided to more precisely explain the criteria the article uses to make those classifications, or C) the states that appear in both lists should be marked in both locations to indicate that their status is unclear. As it stands, if a person were to quickly skim the lists of states, they may fail to notice a state’s inclusion in both lists, and end up misinformed. 73.102.162.126 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added relevant legislation from Taiwan. Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to Article 29 of The Communication Security and Surveillance Act of 1999, call recording is legal if the person conducting the surveillance is one of the parties in communication, or has obtained consent from one of the parties in communication, and the conduct is not for illegal purpose.^[1] Dearviind (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Actualcpscm (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Actualcpscm! Could you please add the source I’ve included as well? Thank you very much! I linked it as [1] in my original message and the full reference is down below. Thanks! Dearviind (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Communication Security and Surveillance Act - Article Content - Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan)". law.moj.gov.tw. Retrieved 9 June 2023.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"According to Polish Penal Code (art. 267) call recording is legal for private person only when recording person is one of the participant" - this is gramatically incorrect - it should read something like "According to the Polish Penal Code (art. 267), call recording is legal for a private person only when the recording person is one of the participants." instead. Ascpixi (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done As a non-controversial change here. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Australia number to text 102.88.43.10 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The Communication Security and Surveillance Act - Article Content - Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan)". law.moj.gov.tw. Retrieved 9 June 2023.

[1]