Telephone call recording laws
Australia. The federal "Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979" and State and Territory listening devices laws may both apply to monitoring or recording of telephone conversations. The general rule is that the call may not be recorded. Section 7 of the "Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979" prohibits intercepting a telephone call. "Interception" is defined in section 6, of which one element is that it is made "without the knowledge of the person making the communication". There are exceptions to these rules in very limited circumstances, including where a warrant applies. If a call is to  be recorded or monitored, an organization must tell the other party at the beginning of the conversation so that it has the chance either to end the call, or to ask to be transferred to another line where monitoring or recording does not take place. Reasons organizations may monitor or record conversations may include: In the state of Queensland it is not illegal to record a telephone conversation by a party to the conversation. Canada. Organizations. In Canada, organizations subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) must comply with PIPEDA when recording calls. In order to  comply with the PIPEDA, organizations should take the following steps when recording conversations: Individuals. An individual may record a call as long as they are one of the participants of the call. The recording can be used as evidence in a lawsuit. However, it is illegal to record communications that the recording party is not participating in. An illegal recording can lead to a sentence of up to five years in prison. Section 183 (Part VI) of the Criminal Code also outlaws surreptitious recording of communications without consent of one of the intended recipients. Czech Republic. Calls and conversations may  be recorded by any active participant, with no requirement to make other parties aware of the recording. It is quite restricted how can you use such recording. The main idea is to use it only for protection of your own rights guaranteed by the law. The law dealing with this is NOZ, §86 and §88 . Denmark. Calls and conversations may be recorded by any active participant, with no requirement to make other parties aware of the recording. But forwarding or playing calls considered private is illegal. The Denmark Data Protection Authority (DPA) ruled on April 11, 2019, that affirmative consent  is required when companies record customer telephone calls. Finland. In the case of private persons, calls and conversations may be recorded by any active participant. There is no requirement to make other parties aware of the recording, but the use of recordings, depending on their content, may be subject to various laws, such as data protection (privacy) legislation, libel laws, laws governing trade and national secrets, and any agreements, such as non-disclosure agreements. Recording of calls by a company or an employer is subject to data protection legislation and, as a general rule, requires informing the participants prior to  recording. Germany. Germany is a two-party consent state—telephone recording without the consent of the two or, when applicable, more, parties is a criminal offence according to Sec. 201 of the German Criminal Code—violation of the confidentiality of the spoken word. Telephone tapping by authorities has to be approved by a judge. Telephone recording by a private citizen can be allowed in cases of self-defence, Sec. 32 of the German Criminal Code, or Necessity, Sec. 34 of the German Criminal Code. For discussion on lawful interception in Germany please see (German language). India. In India, telephone tapping  has to be approved by a designated authority. It is illegal otherwise. The Central Government or State Government is empowered to order interception of messages per 12, section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Rule 419 and 419A sets out the procedure of interception and monitoring of telephone messages. There is a provision for a review committee to supervise the order of interception. Phone tapping is permitted based on Court order only and such permission is granted only if it is required to prevent a major offence involving national security or to gather intelligence on anti-national/terrorist activities. Though  economic offences/tax evasion were initially covered under the reasons for interception of phones, the same was withdrawn in 1999 by the Government based on a Supreme Court order citing protection to privacy of the individual. As per Rule 428 of the India telegraphic rules, no person without the sanction of the telegraph authority, use any telephone or cause or suffer it to be used, purposes other than the establishment of local or trunk calls. The Government of India instructions provide for approved attachments. There is no provision for attachment for recording conversation. Italy. According to the Supreme Court of  Cassation, recorded conversations are legal and can be used as evidence in court, even if the other party is unaware of being recorded, provided that the recording party takes part of the conversation. Ireland. Recording calls is legal and recordings can be used as evidence in court, providing the person recording is a participant to the conversation, or has consent from at least one participant from the conversation. Latvia. Calls and conversations by private persons may be recorded by any active participant. There is no requirement in laws to make other parties aware of the recording, but the use of  recordings, depending on their content, may be subject to various laws. Netherlands. Article 139a of Dutch Criminal law states that "He who deliberately uses a technical aid to record a conversation that is being held in a house, a closed room or a courtyard, without being a participant in the conversation and without any instructions from such a participant, is punishable with imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of the fourth category”. In other words, as long as one is themselves a participant, they are allowed to (discretely) record the entirety of the conversation. Furthermore, while  not explicitly stated, the European General Data Protection Regulation applies to any processing of private conversations that is not ’strictly personal’. Any publication, without explicit consent, is therefore forbidden. New Zealand. Recording of phone calls by private persons falls under interception-related provisions of the Crimes Act 1961, which has a general prohibition on the use of interception devices. An exception is made for when the person intercepting the call is a party to the conversation. There is no requirement that both parties be aware of the interception. The recording of telephone calls however do fall under the purview of  Privacy Act. In general, recording of telephone calls related to personal affairs does not contravene Privacy Act, whereas recording for any other purposes would. In particular, it is usually considered unfair to record someone without telling them. It can still be legal to record without consent if public interest in the content of the recording is strong enough to outweigh the privacy interest or confidentiality interest. Poland. According to Polish Penal Code (art. 267) call recording is legal for private person only when recording person is one of the participant. No consent from the other side is needed then. Similar  to Latvia the use of recordings, depending on their content, may be subject to various laws. Romania. Intercepting communications falls under the provisions of the Penal Code and, in the case of electronic communications, under the Telecommunications Act (506/2004). The recording of a conversation by a private member to that conversation is specifically permitted. Nevertheless, while such recordings are legal, making use of them may fall subject to further civil or criminal law. Their admissibility as evidence also depends on the circumstances. Sweden. According to the Swedish Penal Code (Brottsbalken) Chapter 4, 8–9 §§, it is illegal to make "unauthorized" recordings  of telephone conversations. A court can grant permission for law enforcement agencies to tap telephone lines. Also, anyone participating in the telephone call may record the conversation — at least one party in the call must be aware of the recording being made. A recording is always admissible as evidence in a court, even if obtained in an illegal manner. Turkey. In Turkey, there are strict conditions for both the act of surveillance as well as the storage of that data, but as long as it is clear enough of what exactly is being used for as well as implementation procedures  were legal by authorities, it is deemed as alright. The subject at hand was suspected for not related criminal investigation therefore the telephone tapping was justified. United Kingdom. England and Wales. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in general prohibits interception of communications by a third party, with exceptions related to government agencies. A recording made by one party to a phone call or e-mail without notifying the other is not prohibited provided that the recording is for their own use; recording without notification is prohibited where some of the contents of the communication—a phone conversation or  an e-mail—are made available to a third party. Businesses may record with the knowledge of their employees, but without notifying the other party, to: They may monitor without recording phone calls or e-mails that have been received to see whether they are relevant to the business (e.g., to check for business communications addressed to an employee who is away); but such monitoring must be proportional and in accordance with data protection laws and codes of practice. This summary does not necessarily cover all possible cases. The main legislation which must be complied with is: Under RIPA unlawful  recording or monitoring of communications is a tort, allowing civil action in the courts. There is a summary of applicable rules on the Ofcom website. Recording is sometimes advised, as in recording business transactions carried out by telephone to provide a record. It is sometimes mandatory; from March 2009 Financial Services Authority rules required firms to record all telephone conversations and electronic communications relating to client orders and the conclusion of transactions in the equity, bond, and derivatives markets. In November 2011 this was extended to cover the recording of mobile phone conversations that related to client orders and transactions  by regulated firms. Scotland. The situation in Scotland is similar to that in England and Wales, covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000. United States. In "Rathbun v. United States", the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in regard to interstate or foreign communication that "the clear inference is that one entitled to receive the communication may use it for his own benefit or have another use it for him. The communication itself is not privileged, and one party may not force the other to secrecy merely by using a telephone. It has been conceded by those who believe  the conduct here violates Section 605 [of the Federal Communication Act] that either party may record the conversation and publish it." See "United States v. Polakoff", 113 F. 2d 888, 889. Federal law requires that at least one party taking part in the call must be notified of the recording (18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d)). Call recording laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while other states generally require both parties to be aware. Several states require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation. Telephone recordings are governed  by federal law and by mainly two types of state laws: Two-party consent states. States that generally require that all parties consent to the recording include: One-party consent states. One-party consent states are: Some states distinguish between electronic and in-person communication. For example, Illinois and Oregon are a one-party consent states for electronic communication, but require all-party consent for live in-person communication, with a few exceptions. The California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state  caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. "Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.", 39 Cal. 4th 95). However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening kidnapping, extortion, bribery, human trafficking, or other felony violence. Also included in the exception is misdemeanor obscenity and threats of injury to persons or property via an electronic communication device (usually a telephone) if directed in whole or in part towards a conversation participant or family members. Following the Illinois Supreme Court's decision  in "People v. Clark/Melongo" on March 20, 2014, which struck down Illinois' two-party consent law, Illinois was a one-party consent state. However, the state legislature amended the statute and, as of December 30, 2014, Illinois is once again a two-party consent state for non-electronic communications. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in 1982 that participants in a conversation may record a discussion without getting the permission of other participants. The ruling stated that eavesdropping only applies to: "a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on". This is because the law uses  the wording, "the private discourse of others", rather than the wording, "the private discourse of others "or with others". Michigan law is often misinterpreted as requiring the consent of all parties to a conversation. Accepted forms of notification recording by a telephone company. The Federal Communications Commission defines accepted forms of notification for telephone recording by telephone companies as: