Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 2 days, 10 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 2 days, 11 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 3 days, 2 hrs ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 4 days ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 5 days, 6 hrs ago - more...
|
2009-11-02
, 11:14
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#32
|
Originally Posted by Fargus
What you're missing is that my recording the call and your recording the call, if we were to call each other, are also not the same activity. The notification and granting of permission refers to a specific recording, not to all hypothetically possible recordings that could be happening at the same moment. You're really eliding two different things, because they happen to be taking place at the same time (during the same call). My analogy just makes this more obvious.
The arguement falls down on the basis that it isn't the same activity. The work is to be carried out on a specific car. There is also specific legislation in different areas of contractual and communication law.
Last edited by cb474; 2009-11-02 at 11:20.
|
|
2009-11-02
, 11:16
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#33
|
Originally Posted by fnordianslip
I stand by my analogy, whether or not your or Fargus understand it. Good luck, I doubt your interpretation has much relevance in a court of law, in the admittedly unlikely circumstance that it comes to that. You should just read the Wikipedia article on this. It talks about the UK as well, my comments were more specific to U.S. (You didn't indicate before that you were talking about the UK.) It does appear in the UK you can record a call without notification purely for your own purposes, although you can't share this recording with any third party. If you're placing an international call though, the applicable laws may be very different.
Now you present a more reasoned argument that it is hard to dismiss as easily as your poor analogy. Nonetheless, as others point out, in the UK my interpretation has some validity which is good enough for me.
 |
|
2009-11-02
, 11:32
|
|
Posts: 670 |
Thanked: 359 times |
Joined on May 2007
|
#34
|
My point is primarily about poor use of language, and not so much about interpretation of the law, about which quite frankly, I couldn't care less.
Anyway, 'nuff said I guess on this matter. Hopefully someone will drag it back on topic.
Anyway, 'nuff said I guess on this matter. Hopefully someone will drag it back on topic.
__________________
Class .. : Lame hacker & beardy boffin
Humour . : [#######---] Alignment: Apathetic anarchist
Patience : [####------] Weapon(s): My cat, my code.
Agro ... : |#---------] Relic(s) : N900, MacBookPro, NSLU2, N800, SheevaPlug, Eee-901, Core2-Quad, PS3
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."
--
Beware of extras-devel.
Class .. : Lame hacker & beardy boffin
Humour . : [#######---] Alignment: Apathetic anarchist
Patience : [####------] Weapon(s): My cat, my code.
Agro ... : |#---------] Relic(s) : N900, MacBookPro, NSLU2, N800, SheevaPlug, Eee-901, Core2-Quad, PS3
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."
--
Beware of extras-devel.
|
|
2009-11-02
, 11:37
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#35
|
Originally Posted by fnordianslip
Yes, to me you were the one playing fast and loose with the multiple possible meanings of the word "may," using a semantic argument to make a point that just didn't stand up in the context. And my use of language in my mechanic analogy is not poor, simply because you're unable to understand it.
My point is primarily about poor use of language, and not so much about interpretation of the law, about which quite frankly, I couldn't care less.
Anyway, 'nuff said I guess on this matter. Hopefully someone will drag it back on topic.
|
|
2009-11-02
, 11:43
|
|
Posts: 39 |
Thanked: 51 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#36
|
In a number of countries(ie most of the US, UK , Canada and Australia) the law states that you can record the call without telling the other party as long as the call is not disclosed to a third party. This differs in some states of the US. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws
The legalities in certain states and territories is not really an issue and as maemo is designed to be open it should be up the user to either enable an option to tell the other party they are recording or tell the other party themselves.
The more important issue is whether or not this can be implemented in maemo.
The legalities in certain states and territories is not really an issue and as maemo is designed to be open it should be up the user to either enable an option to tell the other party they are recording or tell the other party themselves.
The more important issue is whether or not this can be implemented in maemo.
|
|
2009-11-02
, 11:47
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#37
|
Originally Posted by cocayden
It differs in twelve states in the U.S. and also if you're making an interstate or international phone call. I already posted all that information above in this thread.
In a number of countries(ie most of the US, UK , Canada and Australia) the law states that you can record the call without telling the other party as long as the call is not disclosed to a third party. This differs in some states of the US. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws
|
|
2009-11-02
, 12:29
|
|
Posts: 316 |
Thanked: 150 times |
Joined on May 2006
|
#38
|
"This call may be recorded" is such a vague and poor use of the language. The announcement can easily be understood as giving permission to both parties to record the call.
In cases where both parties need to be notified that a call is being recorded, this phrase does not help. It does not state if the call is or is not being recorded, it may be that relying on this and recording random calls may be in breach of some versions of the law.
The person in the call center will be well aware that many, if not all calls are recorded. The laws talk about a call being recorded and that one or more parties being aware that it is recorded - not who is doing the recording. If one party is aware that the call is recorded then it is just as ethical for the other party to record it also.
In cases where both parties need to be notified that a call is being recorded, this phrase does not help. It does not state if the call is or is not being recorded, it may be that relying on this and recording random calls may be in breach of some versions of the law.
The person in the call center will be well aware that many, if not all calls are recorded. The laws talk about a call being recorded and that one or more parties being aware that it is recorded - not who is doing the recording. If one party is aware that the call is recorded then it is just as ethical for the other party to record it also.
|
|
2009-11-02
, 12:45
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#39
|
Originally Posted by jaark
Except as I already pointed out above, those recordings don't say "this call may be recorded." They say something like "this call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes." That statement is really not vague at all. It's very clear what it's intended meaning is. It pertains to the activities of the call center you've called. You have to really willfully twist the words around (or quote them out of context as you've done) to make them mean that it gives you permission to record the call.
"This call may be recorded" is such a vague and poor use of the language. The announcement can easily be understood as giving permission to both parties to record the call.
In cases where both parties need to be notified that a call is being recorded, this phrase does not help. It does not state if the call is or is not being recorded, it may be that relying on this and recording random calls may be in breach of some versions of the law.
The person in the call center will be well aware that many, if not all calls are recorded. The laws talk about a call being recorded and that one or more parties being aware that it is recorded - not who is doing the recording. If one party is aware that the call is recorded then it is just as ethical for the other party to record it also.
And actually the laws, at least in the U.S., do talk about "who" is doing the recording. If you're recording, you have to notify the other party. That's what the law says. It doesn't seem ethical at all, to me, to record a call without notifying someone, regardless of whether or not they're recording the call. The point is, are you being upfront about what you're doing? Or are you hiding it and keeping it secret?
It's really quite simple. At least in those states in the U.S. where you're required to do so, if you're recording a call, you have to explicitly notify the other party. That's it. It doesn't matter what the other party is doing; that's their responsibility, but it doesn't absolve you of your responsibility.
|
|
2009-12-16
, 23:22
|
|
Posts: 13 |
Thanked: 4 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Netehrlands
|
#40
|
Hé guys get to the topic! 
I want a Maemo port of "Ultimate VR" the S60 recording tool.
, bought from the Nokia store.
I want a Maemo port of "Ultimate VR" the S60 recording tool.
, bought from the Nokia store.
Class .. : Lame hacker & beardy boffin
Humour . : [#######---] Alignment: Apathetic anarchist
Patience : [####------] Weapon(s): My cat, my code.
Agro ... : |#---------] Relic(s) : N900, MacBookPro, NSLU2, N800, SheevaPlug, Eee-901, Core2-Quad, PS3
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."
--
Beware of extras-devel.