I believe that's the case, but it does not apply to interstate calls. I, personally, get a kick out of calling in to banks, etc, who include the message "calls may be recorded for . . ." I routinely record calls and really like it when they grant me permission up front like that.Greybeard wrote:Have you been stopped for a traffic violation lately? Think at least the big city cops ain't got one runnin'? (Over and above the video on the dash.)
Methinks you may have confused with telephone conversations. Last I knew, in Tejas anyway, legit if at least ONE party knows conversation is being recorded.
A while back I was recording a call and the young lady I was dealing with was refusing to refer me to a supervisor, I mentioned that I was doing so to the person who I was recording, she got very upset and ordered me to stop recording. I pointed out that I had advance permission to record the call (If you say it may be recorded, then that gives me permission to do so.) at which point she transferred me to a supervisor, which had been my objective to begin with.
The supervisor then ordered me to stop recording, at which point I repeated that I had been given permission to do so and was not going to give up that permission. She tried to argue that the recorded message that said that the call may be recorded only applied to them, to which my response was that the message didn't say that, and what did she have to say that she was afraid of having recorded anyway?
I have also been known to carry a recorder with me.