Talk:Telephone call recording laws: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:26, 4 November 2023

Law Unassessed

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]

使い方が分かりません、設定方法を教えてください 218.43.174.79 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2023 (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.

Uhfhxdyxfon

Dxvgfuyusdg go f G BBC d’y hv xx hv ça vu go de b hv DJ XD c FCC 24.46.123.34 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtcwngg hv E

Hv egg BBC se TV creed by BBC se TV by hv xx n b@ f tv CD DC f BBC f tv h hv du hunting t to by hv de BBC tu hv fg va hv de g gf BBC ça ne go un by du 24.46.123.34 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud

What to do with these numbers I found under “assist” to find out who has been tracking me? Or how to rid myself of it entirely?? 2603:8090:1801:1EB1:B8DB:E42D:7472:D995 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rcodir my call 2A02:C7C:64FC:A800:C8A9:86E0:D357:304C (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud

To make call 41.190.2.176 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Telephone call recording laws. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection 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]

[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]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 To make call [[Special:Contributions/41.190.2.176|41.190.2.176]] ([[User talk:41.190.2.176|talk]]) 14:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
+== Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2023 ==
+{{edit semi-protected|Telephone call recording laws|answered=no}}
+"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. [[User:Ascpixi|Ascpixi]] ([[User talk:Ascpixi|talk]]) 02:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)