We, as a communications provider, sell telephony services where call recording is a standard feature. If you have a number from us even if connected with a mobile SIM, or VoIP phone, we can record calls and email them to you as a standard feature at no extra cost. It is really very useful.
Personally, I record all calls. As a business (A&A) we record all calls. Indeed, for business it is so common it is to be expected and you don't even have to say that calls are recorded (we think).
There are issues with "why" the calls are recorded and "who" gets to access those recordings.
Now, as a service we offer, it is important that our customers understand the rules on the recordings of calls they make or receive.
So later in the year (or next year), in light of GDPR, we need to work it all out. The plan it to make some proper legal advice on call recordings, when and how. I'll be blogging on the matter, and A&A will have advice for customers as much as we can.
At the end of the day, the fact a call was recorded usually only comes up when someone wants to deny what they said, or agreed. Once you get to that the fact you recorded the call is not the issue, it is the fact someone lied, or broke a contract, that matters. They cannot get out of that by saying they did not know the call was recorded. That is saying "If I knew it was recorded I would have told the truth" which is not going to wash with any judge, I suspect.
So watch this space on that...
But there is something weird that happened today. A public body wants a meeting, but their "policy" is (a) you cannot bring a solicitor, and (b) you cannot record the meeting. The second point is odd, well both points are odd, but especially as they say they will be recording the meeting and will send a copy of the recording...
They say this is "policy"! Policy is a lovely term and we see it all the time. We have encountered BT policy as a company. We counter such things saying "A&A policy is X". When anyone spouts "policy" they are dictating something as an immutable rule when not considering that the other party may legitimately have their own conflicting "policy" on such matters.
It is my policy to record all meetings... This is one reason it is not me going tomorrow.
So we have pondered some legal points - if all participants of the meeting know it is recorded and know that we will get a copy of the recording, is there any legal impediment to us covertly recording the meeting? I think not... I am not a lawyer, but it is an interesting legal point. Comments?
You also have to wonder why, though? I can think of two reasons. The main one is for them to be able to edit the recording before providing a copy. That is not, in any way, a stated intention, and would be unethical I feel. The other is to hold copyright on the recording - but one could make your own transcript using the recording to ensure accuracy and hold your own copyright on the transcript - so not a useful right to retain. Either way, something wrong with not allowing both parties to make a recording. Neither party making a recording may be a valid thing in some cases, but hard to see why a public body would want such an "off the record" meeting, and they have not said they do. It just makes no sense to refuse us making a recording when they will and provide us with a copy!
So, what do to... We will have two see...
I find myself in one of those situations where I would love to say more - to say which public body, and what is at stake. As you may imagine, doing so at this stage could be a problem legally. But it is an interesting legal point, and I know several legal minds read my blog - so comment away...
What is the law on recording a meeting?
P.S. Thanks for all the interesting comments. Meeting went well enough and no sign of a coverup, which was a surprise. Not something we can say more on at this stage. Solicitors next. Sounds like the no-recording is just bullshit policy crap (incompetence rather than malice).