Myst and Vlade,
Thanks for you thoughtful responses. I noticed both of you cited "phone calls" which in this case is not what is being recorded.
Basically all I did was follow links to where actual case laws were cited. The cites differentiate between employees
recording personal conversations versus a general recording of conversation going on in public areas of an establishment.
IMHO half of the videos on YouTube would not exist if other-party laws were the way some here claim they are. And in our suit happy society we'd see all kinds of lawsuits going on for invasion of privacy because of what is otherwise legally obtained content posted on YouTube.
Several months ago I witnessed the police response at a local restaurant. A person got upset and grabbed another person's phone. They claimed invasion of privacy. The police clearly explained it was a public area, the person that grabbed the phone was in the wrong, and they returned the phone to it's owner. They almost arrested the person that incorrectly interpreted the law.
Try discussing the laws about concealed pocket knives and it's just as confusing.
My posts are solely based on my opinions and for my entertainment, contact a professional if you need real advice.
When you get in debt you become a slave. - Andrew Jackson