the freedom to tape?

Posted on June 19, 2003 by Lessig

I wrote this piece for CIO Insight, arguing that companies ought to let customers spy on their customer service agents. But I wonder: When you get a recording while on hold that says, “Calls may be monitored to assure quality assurance,” doesn’t the passive voice already authorize you, the customer, to tape as well?

This entry was posted in good code. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to the freedom to tape?

  1. Curtis says:
    June 19, 2003 at 8:03 am

    I’ve certainly always thought that it was a dual license — that if they can tape, why couldn’t I?

  3. Zach says:
    June 19, 2003 at 9:22 am

    “may be monitored” sounds like they are giving you permission to me.

  4. Matthew says:
    June 19, 2003 at 9:58 am

    “Distraction” by Bruce Sterling covers this idea quite nicely.

    I work for a company that manufactures those recording systems. I think in most cases, “may be monitored” is legalese for “is being recorded, and we can decide to listen to it at our discretion.” Also be aware that the systems are designed to archive those recordings to NAS or DVDram drives, so your conversation can be saved nearly indefinitely.

    As for giving you the right to record back, as long as you have a disclaimer as well, you’re okay. (IANAL) Be aware, also, that some states require no disclaimer, as long as there is an audible tone indicator. (If you hear a beep every 30 sec or 1 min, you are probably being recorded)

  5. James says:
    June 19, 2003 at 10:39 am

    They’re saying “may be monitored” — which includes the customer as well. If they meant “may be monitored by us,” they would say “may be monitored by us.”

    That’s pretty clear.

    However, I know someone who works for a major computer manufacturer as a CR agent. In their training, CR agents are told that if a customer says, “I am recording this call,” the agent must say, “I do not give you permission to record this call.”

    It’s quite clear why they don’t want these things recorded — they don’t want customers to have proof of things that were said or promised in the phone call, to use in court.

  6. Lynne says:
    June 20, 2003 at 8:00 am

    It has been my understanding that, so long as one party is aware of the taping, it is legal. The taping agency is obviously aware. You cannot physically notify a tape machine at the express moment you want to tape. It seems to me there is an implied reciprocal agreement, anyhow I think you would be on solid ground if you did your own taping.

  7. Walter says:
    June 20, 2003 at 11:26 pm

    “[M]ay be monitored” just means there is a chance your call might be monitored. Has nothing to do with asserting permission. Along the lines of what Matthew said, but I’m trying to make it more explicit.

  8. Ben Finney says:
    June 23, 2003 at 9:26 pm

    Most services I call that give this announcement (in Australia) phrase it as: “Your call may be monitored for quality and coaching purposes. [If you don’t want this], inform your operator when your call is answered.”

    While this tries to qualify with “quality and coaching purposes”, I think that *me* recording the call to guarantee *their* quality is perfectly within this phrasing.

    Heck, you might even be able to convince a judge that this phrasing *gives the explicit suggestion* to record the call “for quality purposes”.

  9. Rich says:
    June 24, 2003 at 1:10 pm

    Isn’t there a difference between “monitoring” and “recording”? (This distinction could go either way — eg if Big Corp. just tells me they are monitoring our call, do they have permission to record it?)

  10. Mark says:
    June 25, 2003 at 9:12 am

    I generally say “Likewise” right after those recordings. It lets them know what I’m up to, fulfilling the disclosure part. I tell the recorded voice all sorts of things already (“Please type in the last four digits of your SSN,” “Please type in your account number now”) so one more thing isn’t that much of a stretch.

  11. BS says:
    June 25, 2003 at 8:38 pm

    I figured it was a legal requirment they needed to meet in order to record the conversation.

    Now, if they happen to need (or want) the conversation out of their ‘training archives’, then they just happen to have it. And, are legally covered for taping it.

    I’ve requested a number of times to not have my conversation taped, but was told it was ‘procedure’. This ploy, as far as I can tell, means management doesn’t want the customer service rep, or you the customer, to have authority to turn it off. I never really pushed the issue, but may have to in the near future.

    Telling them that you will be recording the conversation as well is an interesting spin that I missed, or never gave too much thought, but I may have to try that as well.

Comments are closed.