0

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), some actions are illegal by themselves, while others are only illegal if they are accompanied by "intent".

e.g. (in the U.S.) Filling out tax forms incorrectly is only illegal if I intend to commit tax fraud. Presumably I can fill out hundreds of tax forms incorrectly, throw them in the trash, and not run afoul of the law. Or more realistically, if I fill out the forms incorrectly by mistake, I am still legally OK because my intent was to pay my taxes correctly (proving that in case of an audit is a separate matter).

How does this apply when recording phone calls in a two-party consent state?

If I want to record phone calls for my own personal records, only to aid my fragile memory or to have my assistant transcribe them, is that inherently illegal? Or does it only become illegal if/when I make the recording available to other people?

edit: in the previous hypothetical, assume that the other party knew that my assistant was on the call, as if they were transcribing it live

rmcrear
  • 13
  • 4

1 Answers1

2

Assume the relevant law said it was prohibited to record a call without permission. It looks like you wish it was a different law - prohibition on sharing such a recording with a third party. But that’s not the law.

The only “intent” I see in this point of view is you are trying to discern the reason (or fundamental intent) for the law and decide you are ok if you don’t violate that even if you violate the actual law. No.

An analogy - The speed limit is 25 (to keep people safe) so if you drive 50 when you are sure no one is around you have stayed within the intent of the law even though you violated the actual law. No.

George White
  • 13,339
  • 2
  • 27
  • 60