Legal aspects of call recording

Grabavoz.com only provides the technical means to record telephone conversations, the custody of the same is the responsibility of the customer.

The recording of calls this to its use by the participants in the conversation. In the same way that might remind her of memory, or take notes on it, you can record it as means to have reference on what it says. But, you are not allowed to do a digital transcription of the recording.

In the case of wanting to involve a third party of this conversation, been have express permission of the participants in it. In case of not informing all stakeholders a call recording, it can only be used as a personal reference. (With the exception of its use in court proceedings.)

If the recording was made in the development of a professional activity (outside the domestic or personal), apply the rules of data protection. More thoroughly…

In accordance with the existing case law, we can say that participants in telephone conversations have the power to record them in the same way that nobody prevents them from taking notes on them. What is illicit, is to provide to third parties the content of it, because it would require the consent of the other party.

At the same time, if such recording was made in the development of a professional activity (outside the domestic or personal), apply the rules of data protection: high-file in the Agency of protection of data, preparation of relevant security policy, etc…

In the legal sphere, the party can bring such conversation as proof: similarly that a mail recipient has written proof of the content, a partner of a conversation can have the content of the test. Thus, in the same way that we can bring as proof a letter that we sent or we have received, we can provide the recording of a conversation in which we are part.

In short: If who gives judgment as evidence a recording is one of the partners in the conversation, it will be valid and will be the judge who decides at its discretion on its admission. Now, not to be present in the conversation who provide it, it assumes infringement of the right to privacy and does not admit, and may result in consequences for the third person.

Case law: Judgment of the Provincial Court of Barcelona (16th of the Civil Section) No. 236, may 4, 2009: “obtaining the test was not illegal or violate the right to privacy and to secrecy of communications of defendants, because it was a recording of a conversation held by who effected registration and others. It was not recording of conversation outside who recorded. In those cases there is no illegality in the obtaining of the test said the Constitutional Court already in its ruling of 29 November 1994 and reiterated what the Supreme Court in yours of May 11, 1994 and on May 30, 1995.”

Supreme Court judgement No. 710, July 6, 2000: “therefore cannot be seen, in principle, that the recording of a conversation by a private partner involves the violation of a constitutional right, which determine the valuation of the test ban if obtained.” Therefore, the admission of the test proposed by the representation of the victims set overly rigorous and formalistic action resulting helplessness to the proposing party of the same.”

Judgment of the Constitutional Court (room 2) No. 702, of 20 May 1997: “there is no violation of the right to privacy when the recurrent himself is who has evidenced his thoughts without coercion of any kind”; “recording of the words of the accused by the complainant for the purpose of subsequent disclosure does not violate any rights to secrecy, discretion or privacy of the appellant.”

Judgment of the Court Supreme No. 178, of 1 of March of 1996: “[…]” The content of a conversation can reach the process via its playlist oral if any of the attendees remember faithfully the conversational, or through the delivery of a tape containing verbatim, with greater or lesser sound quality, the exchange of words between attendees. When a person voluntarily issued their opinions or secrets to a sparring it knows in advance that were divested of their secrets and is transmitted them, more or less confidence to those who listen to him, which may use your content without incurring any legal reproach.”

Judgment No. 375, of 7 February 1992 of the Supreme Court: “the recording of a conversation that takes place between two people and one of those involved want to have reliable evidence of the Treaty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *