Two party consent to record...

Many states, IL among them, requires two-party consent to record a conversation. It’s a felony if you record without it. Why? You’re trying desperately to prove harassment, threats, reinforce a restraining order, etc. who is going to say “yes” that it’s okay?

The only solution I can think of is to let every single call go to voice mail expecting the person to leave nasty messages there if you never answer. It’s a given you’re being recorded and implied consent if you leave a message.

I cant think of a good reason for that law. You?


Whar do you think of this two-partynconsent Law?

MaggieD said:

Many states, IL among them, requires two-party consent to record a conversation. It’s a felony if you record without it. Why? You’re trying desperately to prove harassment, threats, reinforce a restraining order, etc. who is going to say “yes” that it’s okay?

The only solution I can think of is to let every single call go to voice mail expecting the person to leave nasty messages there if you never answer. It’s a given you’re being recorded and implied consent if you leave a message.

I cant think of a good reason for that law. You?


Whar do you think of this two-partynconsent Law?

Click to expand...

Dual consent is designed to prevent citizens from documenting promises made by politicians, lawyers, police officers, detectives, ex’s, etc. as well as to prevent people from “farming” unguarded comments that are later used against them.

You need the expectation of privacy to lie.

wow .............. I agree with Mags too? the world is ending ................. :lol: ............

chuckiechan said:

Dual consent is designed to prevent citizens from documenting promises made by politicians, lawyers, police officers, detectives, ex’s, etc. as well as to prevent people from “farming” unguarded comments that are later used against them.

You need the expectation of privacy to lie.

Click to expand...

Well, that explains Illinois.

cuban smokes said:

wow .............. I agree with Mags too? the world is ending ................. :lol: ............

Click to expand...

Don’t get used to it.

maggied said:

don’t get used to it.

Click to expand...

lol ...............

Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Not sure for each state but my guess would be that a recording could be made where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Again just what I would guess.

MaggieD said:

Many states, IL among them, requires two-party consent to record a conversation. It’s a felony if you record without it. Why? You’re trying desperately to prove harassment, threats, reinforce a restraining order, etc. who is going to say “yes” that it’s okay?

The only solution I can think of is to let every single call go to voice mail expecting the person to leave nasty messages there if you never answer. It’s a given you’re being recorded and implied consent if you leave a message.

I cant think of a good reason for that law. You?

Whar do you think of this two-partynconsent Law?

Click to expand...

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a second.

One-Party consent is a two-edged sword. Often the people seeking to "prove something" fail to realize they are themselves at fault for the same or similar things they are trying to show by secretly recording...when secretly recorded by someone else.

Moreover, in today's high tech society, it is becoming easier to "edit" recordings so that what was recorded only reflects against the target without showing the conduct leading to such responses by the person recording.

Even easier, selective recording. All one has to do to prove harassment or some other misconduct is to make a suggestive statement while your recording is off, and then turn it on to catch the "sexist, racist, etc." remark generated in return...viola! Evidence of whatever misconduct without showing the true picture.

Still, I am of the opinion that all's fair in (non-violent) free expression and recognizing the possibility of being recorded, you should not say something you wouldn't want your mom to hear when talking to someone else.