I was hoping to get some feedback about what types of digital voice recorders others would recommend for doing both phone and in-person assignments. I would also appreciate hearing back from those of you that are using your smart phones for voice recordings and which apps you like.

If you are going to use a speakerphone for phone assignments, then any quality recorder will do. I like Olympus DVRs, especially the models that have built-in USB connectors.

I have two free recording apps on my Android phone. My first choice is the Easy Voice Recorder. My second choice is the Voice Recorder by Mamoru Tokashiki.

Another possibility is to use the recording function on an iPod, a Sansa Clip Plus, or another mp3 player with a good microphone. This may be especially useful for in-person shops, where you can wear the player in plain view and not attract extra attention. If you clip the player near your collar, the recording often picks up your voice and the employee's voice very well.

Be careful about different state laws about recording, though.

I use a Sony IC Recorder. It was about $50 at Best Buy and has a USB cable so you can upload recordings to your computer.

IIRC, there are only 14 states that have dual-party consent laws, meaning that you must notify the other people involved if you're going to record them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2012 10:44PM by James Bond 007.5.

I have a MemoQ pen recorder that I LOVE. Pricey - a friend gave me mine - but the sound quality is great and I just stick it in a shirt pocket. When I did the payday loan shops I took it out and held it in my hand with the end pointed under the bulletproof glass to pick up the employee's voice better. Since I had to fill things out and sign things it was natural to have my pen at the ready.

JamesBond,
I have a list of 14 two party consent states that includes the ones named here [www.rcfp.org] plus Delaware. Since I try to keep up on this for purposes of mentoring new video/audio shoppers, I am very anxious to know what 4 new states have become two party states.


Edited to add: James Bond and I have consulted and we now agree that there are only 14. He was good enough to edit his post to indicate that.

Thanks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2012 11:44PM by walesmaven.

Thanks to all that responded. I think I will start out with one of the apps suggested for my smartphone and see how well that works. But I will let the special someone in my life know about the actual devices in case he would like to help upgrade my little business.

I guess I won't be trying to do any shops in California if I travel -- I'm useless without my audio recorder (my memory is horrid) and I doubt the shop would go well if I had to ask permission to record what the target was saying. I knew I was legal in Arizona to record any conversation I was a party to, but didn't know about California. The other place I might shop someday is Oregon and apparently they are also one-party so I should be okay there.

Thanks for that link, walesmaven! A lot of good information there.

A hypothetical for the whiz kids here.

You are doing a shop for a corporate client, be it a franchisee or whatever. You are in a two party consent state. The corporate client is engaged in interstate commerce. Would Federal Law [which is 1 party consent] not superceed the state in this instance?

Nice try JamesBond, But no. See the discussion at the site that I cited.

If I remember correctly, federal law is silent on the issue of audio recording a conversation to which you are a party, leaving that to the states (Except for phone tapping, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.) The federal court ruling that says that video (without audio) is legal was only concerned with the question of whether or not one has the expectation of privacy from having one's picture/video taken "in the public forum." It was not based on a specific federal law that grants or withholds anything, as far as I am aware.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2012 08:06PM by walesmaven.

Wales, check out the Citizens Media Law Project. Their list doesn't quite match your list which is for members of the press. Here's the site: [www.citmedialaw.org]
and here's the 12 states, per the Citizens Media Law Project, that require every party's consent:

Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington (Hawai'i is also in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.

On your press list, CT was a 1 party state. I wonder if the law is different given the Constitutional protection of Freedom of the Press? I believe OR, MI, & RI were on the press list as two party states.

Didn't know the press had any special rights.

James Bond 007.5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wales, check out the Citizens Media Law Project.
> Their list doesn't quite match your list which is
> for members of the press. Here's the site:
> [www.citmedialaw.org]
> hone-calls-and-conversations
> and here's the 12 states, per the Citizens Media
> Law Project, that require every party's consent:
>
> Twelve states require the consent of every party
> to a phone call or conversation in order to make
> the recording lawful. These "two-party consent"
> laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut,
> Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
> Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and
> Washington (Hawai'i is also in general a one-party
> state, but requires two-party consent if the
> recording device is installed in a private place).
> Although they are referred to as "two-party
> consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every
> party to a phone call or conversation if it
> involves more than two people. In some of these
> states, it might be enough if all parties to the
> call or conversation know that you are recording
> and proceed with the communication anyway, even if
> they do not voice explicit consent. See the State
> Law: Recording section of this legal guide for
> information on specific states' wiretapping laws.
>
> On your press list, CT was a 1 party state. I
> wonder if the law is different given the
> Constitutional protection of Freedom of the Press?
> I believe OR, MI, & RI were on the press list as
> two party states.

No. Her list shows CT as a "two-party state," and shows the following 12 states as "two party states": (1) California, (2) Connecticut, (3) Florida, (4) Illinois, (5) Maryland, (6) Massachusetts, (7) Michigan, (8) Montana, (9) Nevada, (10) New Hampshire, (11) Pennsylvania, and (12) Washington.

Your list shows 11 states as "two-party states": California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. It further states that Hawaii is generally a "one-party state" but requires "two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place." So, your source and her source differ on Hawaii and Michigan, but not on Connecticut.

AFAIK, her source is correct on Michigan and your source is correct on Hawaii. Her post also mentioned Delaware. That, in my personal (not professional) opinion, is more complicated.

itsasecret Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't know the press had any special rights.

The press has special rights (compared to non-press) based on the First Amendment, especially when it comes to censorship (prior restraint). However, AFAIK, the press does not have special rights when it comes to the subject at hand, i.e. what kind of consent is required to record a conversation legally.

Below is an exerpt from the California page of the Citizens Media Law project. Evidently it is unclear how the law will be interpreted, at least in California. If you are in a restaurant where someone is sitting at the table next to you or at a retail establishment on a line at the cashier station, unless you are having some sort of quiet private conversation with the server or cashier, it would seem reasonable to me that the people standing or sitting right next to you would be able to easily hear. But then again I do not think I would want to be one of the test cases for interpretation.



"The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place."

The press has lawyers keeping track of this precisely because the press has no special rights to record audio in states that require two party consent.

All I know about adding Delaware is that the video MSCs appear to have been advised by legal counsel to add it to the two party consent list.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2012 02:41PM by walesmaven.

I live in the state of Florida which is a two-party consent state but I also work in media. I always see reporters using digital recorders for their interviews and at public and private events. They do not hide them though; they are in plain sight.

As a photographer, I get special access and privileges that the public does not get except when it comes to children (anyone under 18 years old.) If I am on private property though, I do have to get permission. I had a lawyer call the cops on me once saying that I was trespassing but it was determined that I was on the sidewalk which was owned by the city so no handcuffs for me that day. Bummer! ;-)

As far as recording during a MS in a two-party state, I am wondering if the employees of these companies that we are shopping have signed some sort of media waiver as part of their employment. I have seen some of these "contacts" at schools (to cover the students) and with big corporations. It is usually a blanket statement covering photographs, video recording and phone calls. Wouldn't this cover us MS'ers since we are being contracted by a MSC who is being hired by the client who hired the employee? (Is that convoluted enough for you guys?)

The MSC has the responsibility to have the client demonstrate that appropriate waivers, signed by all employees, are on file. Be sure to ASK the MSC if you have any doubts.

If anyone (press or not) approaches me with a recorder in plain view and asks me questions, and I speak to that person while I can clearly see that recorder is recording, I am consenting (by my action) to be recorded. =)

It's a different story if someone is recording me but I don't know I'm being recorded (such as over the phone or if I can't otherwise see the conversation is being recorded).

As for the types of contracts you mentioned, we shoppers have to consider at least two things. First, we don't know, for certain, whether the people we shop actually signed contracts giving their permission. Second, we don't know if the terms of a contract, even if signed, cover us (shoppers) as agents of the agent (MSC) of the end-client. Ultimately, it's our necks on the line and it's up to each of us to weigh the risks and rewards.

Lots of interesting information here about the legalities of recording someone.

Still looking forward to hearing from those of you out in the field that are using your smart phones for doing audio recordings for your assignments. I'd like to know if you can get a good enough quality using your phones in this manner for a recording to be accepted by an MSC.

Would also be appreciative of any guidance as to whether I should just not bother using my phone in this way, and instead, simply pick up a device intended for the purpose of doing digital voice recordings.

Shopgal, I tend to be old school, the more tasks you ask one device to do, the more compromises have to be made. Since DVR's are in the $40-50 range on the low end, I really see no reason no to have one.

I have a smart phone that makes great sound recordings. BUT, I prefer the Olympus DVR for field recordinggs of conversations for several reasons. The DVR is easier to set and conceal. It will record for hours on one AAA battery. It plugs directly into my computer's USB port for transferring the recording to my desktop where I can control the playback easily and with the timer showing me exact timings. It is highly reliable and a great bargain if you buy it on Ebay. It lasts and lasts. Mine is about 6 years old and no newer model has improved on its capabilities.

Although I usually try to use one appliance instead of two (I use my camera for photos of receipts, and do not want a scanner for that) this is the exception where specialization pays off.