Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #59338 > unrolled thread

Call Recording

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Call Recording Ian <ian@privacy.net> - 2019-01-26 18:48 +0000
    Re: Call Recording arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-01-26 20:48 +0000
      Re: Call Recording Boris <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-26 21:12 +0000
        Re: Call Recording arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-01-26 22:17 +0000
    Re: Call Recording Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2019-01-27 07:29 +0100
      Re: Call Recording VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2019-01-27 01:31 -0600
        Re: Call Recording Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2019-01-27 11:13 +0100
          Re: Call Recording Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2019-01-27 15:04 +0000
            Re: Call Recording 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2019-01-27 09:09 -0700
            Re: Call Recording arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-01-28 01:49 +0000
          Re: Call Recording arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-01-28 01:49 +0000
        Re: Call Recording Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2019-01-27 11:16 +0100
          Re: Call Recording VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2019-01-27 20:03 -0600
            Re: Call Recording "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-01-28 03:54 +0100
              Re: Call Recording arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-01-28 03:53 +0000
        Re: Call Recording "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-01-27 14:36 +0100
          Re: Call Recording Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2019-01-30 21:32 +0100
        Re: Call Recording nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-27 14:16 -0500
      Re: Call Recording John McGaw <Nobody@Nowh.ere> - 2019-01-27 11:11 -0500
      Re: Call Recording "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2019-01-27 17:49 +0100
        Re: Call Recording "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2019-01-27 17:58 +0100
          Re: Call Recording Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2019-01-27 21:39 +0100
            Re: Call Recording "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2019-01-27 23:00 +0100
        Re: Call Recording Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2019-01-27 21:32 +0100
          Re: Call Recording arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-01-28 01:48 +0000
      Re: Call Recording arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> - 2019-01-28 01:49 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#59338 — Call Recording

Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables 
all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#59343

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 18:48:34 +0000, Ian wrote:

> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables 
> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update

Thank you for letting us know.

I'm on Android 7, Nougat, so I'm unaware of this.

And, I can't even _find_ a Windows-based Android 9 emulator that works on
my older AMD-based Windows 10 desktop. (sigh).

I would try the open-source apps, since they may be "outside" Google's
direct influence perhaps (maybe not, as many are on Fdroid & GooglePlay).

Did you try this open-source app by Alexey Kuznetsov?
o Call Recorder version 1.6.36 (that's my version)
o <https://gitlab.com/axet/android-call-recorder>
o <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.github.axet.callrecorder/>

I didn't find _that_ app on Google Play (did I miss it?).

There is another (same? different?) app on F-Droid:
o <https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/com.callrecorder.android>

NOTE: I used to use this app before they became obnoxious:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorder>

Please let us know if the Alexey Kuznetsov call recorder works, 
as it may be an open-source app _outside_ the clutches of Google???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59344

arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com> wrote in news:q2ih26$gv8$2@news.mixmin.net:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 18:48:34 +0000, Ian wrote:
> 
>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9
>> disables all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
> 
> Thank you for letting us know.
> 
> I'm on Android 7, Nougat, so I'm unaware of this.
> 
> And, I can't even _find_ a Windows-based Android 9 emulator that works
> on my older AMD-based Windows 10 desktop. (sigh).
> 
> I would try the open-source apps, since they may be "outside" Google's
> direct influence perhaps (maybe not, as many are on Fdroid &
> GooglePlay). 
> 
> Did you try this open-source app by Alexey Kuznetsov?
> o Call Recorder version 1.6.36 (that's my version)
> o <https://gitlab.com/axet/android-call-recorder>
> o <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.github.axet.callrecorder/>
> 
> I didn't find _that_ app on Google Play (did I miss it?).
> 
> There is another (same? different?) app on F-Droid:
> o <https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/com.callrecorder.android>
> 
> NOTE: I used to use this app before they became obnoxious:
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorder>
> 
> Please let us know if the Alexey Kuznetsov call recorder works, 
> as it may be an open-source app _outside_ the clutches of Google???
> 

I once asked here for Android emulators that worked on desktops, but no
one knew of any.  Where do you get yours? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59348

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 21:12:28 -0000 (UTC), Boris wrote:

> I once asked here for Android emulators that worked on desktops, but no
> one knew of any.  Where do you get yours?

Hi Boris,
I wrote a half dozen (or so) tutorials, one for each Android emulator.
o I wrote them, oh, about a month or two ago.

So they should be easy to find in the archives.
 http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
 http://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com

I write these tutorials (each of which takes about a day to write)
expressly so that _others_ may benefit from my step-by-step tutorials.

I searched for and tested _EVERY_ single free Android emulator.
o Every single one (that I could find) that ran on Windows.

Here is a link to some of those tutorials, each of which I tested
every single line that I post (on Windows 10, AMD CPU).
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/aW64zYeBtF0/c7TrEvhIAQAJ>

Personally, here's my recommendation, given that I'm on a super-old desktop
which happens to be AMD-based, which is a problem with some emulators,
where speed & compatibility are an issue you won't have with new'ish
machines, nor with Intel-based machines.

1. If you want to play games, then use Bluestacks emulation.
o <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/JBRjZ39w4Ok> 

2. If you want to run code, then use Genymotion emulation.
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ix9empN-mxg/07ZmH2AWAQAJ>

Please note, I am NOT an Android expert, nor a Windows expert, nor a coding
expert, nor an emulation expert, etc. I just test things reasonably well.

Hence, I would LOVE to LEARN from YOU, if/when you test out those
tutorials!

Please let me know what works for you and what doesn't work.
We _all_ benefit from a purposefully helpful adult dialog.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59369

Am 26.01.19 um 19:48 schrieb Ian:
> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update

They are simply illegal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59371

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Ian:
>
>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
> 
> They are simply illegal.

Not true.  If the callee identifies to the caller that the call is being
recorded and the caller agrees then there is illegality.  If the call
has a repeated beep to identify the call is being recorded then that is
not an illegal recording.  Providers still offer the service to record
incoming calls.  The choice by Google is their own choice and not based
on the legality of recording calls.

The OP never mentioned from which country the calls originated.  So
neither you or I can address is recording the call is illegal on a
global basis.  We can only speak regarding what is allowed in our own
country.  The callee is only responsible to comply with the laws of his
locality, state, or country, not with those of the caller.

Google has many times giveth and then taketh away.  Some apps used to
monitor for spam calls and they could also monitor for spam texts.  That
was up to Android 4.4.3 which thereafter the anti-spam apps could only
see the source of the call and no longer could see the source of a text,
yet lots of those anti-spam apps still declare then can block spam
texts.

That apps can no longer record incoming calls has nothing to do with
legality.  It all has to do with Google deciding to remove some or all
of an API that the apps used to record the calls (instead of the apps
using their own code which may require rooting the phone).

https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/media/mediarecorder

  RECORD_AUDIO is considered a "dangerous" permission because it may 
  pose a risk to the user's privacy.

As of Android 6, users got prompted when an app wanted access to a
dangerous permission, and at some point Google decided to prompt the
user on all of what permissions an app can have.  This didn't meant
users were instantly and magically educated about the permissions but
they were told an app wanted one, or more.  An app, for example, could
run in the background and record all your calls, not just the calls you
chose to record, and even send the recordings to somewhere.

Google did NOT disable the ability of apps to record a call in Android 9
Pie.  What they did was change the API so *background* apps could no
longer keep recording the incoming calls.  The user now has to take
overt action to record a call and that meant the app must be
foregrounded.

  (from the above article)
  Note: On devices running Android 9 (API level 28) or higher, apps 
  running in the background cannot access the microphone. Therefore, 
  your app should record audio only when it's in the foreground or when 
  you include an instance of MediaRecorder in a foreground service.
  
That means your recording app must be foregrounded for it to record the
call, not hiding as either a backgrounded app or running as a service.
The recording app must now change from a hidden and automatic recording
app to itself being a dialer that you use to make the outgoing call or
as a substitute "phone" app that appears for you to accept an incoming
call.  There might be other means of getting the app to appear and in
the foreground when a new call comes in but the obvious one is to use a
Phone app to take the incoming calls and which adds a recording option.  

Recording apps that only record are going to get killed.  Those single-
purpose backgrounded apps that only record a call won't work, anymore.
However, as a phone app that has you decided to take the call and is
foregrounded then those can still record your calls.  Or you root your
phone to get around the limitation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59372

Am 27.01.19 um 08:31 schrieb VanguardLH:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> 
>> Ian:
>>
>>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
>>
>> They are simply illegal.
> 
> Not true.  If the callee identifies to the caller that the call is being
> recorded and the caller agrees then there is illegality.  

This is certainly not illegal.


> has a repeated beep to identify the call is being recorded then that is
> not an illegal recording.  

This is illegal. The consent of the callee is necessary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59376

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:13:52 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

>Am 27.01.19 um 08:31 schrieb VanguardLH:
>> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> 
>>> Ian:
>>>
>>>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>>>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
>>>
>>> They are simply illegal.
>> 
>> Not true.  If the callee identifies to the caller that the call is being
>> recorded and the caller agrees then there is illegality.  
>
>This is certainly not illegal.
>
>
>> has a repeated beep to identify the call is being recorded then that is
>> not an illegal recording.  
>
>This is illegal. The consent of the callee is necessary.

Here we go again, people arguing legalities when there are countless
jurisdictions involved, all with different laws.

If you want to claim something is legal or illegal please state which
country/countries you're referring to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59377

Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> Wrote in message:

> If you want to claim something is legal or illegal please state which
> country/countries you're referring to.

In my jurisdiction (US/AZ) it is legal to record a call with only
 ONE party's knowledge. One of the often used investigation
 tactics (tricks?) used by local police is to have the VICTIM call
 an unsuspecting suspect and get a recorded crime admission which
 can be later used in court. For example a molesting victim
 reports a years old crime to the cops. They have her call the
 perp and he often begs her not to call the cops for what he's
 done. (Reading a person his rights only applies if he is in
 custody.) Without that ability it would have been a he said/she
 said situation with sucessful prosecution unlikely. However phone
 tapping (where neither party is aware of the recording) still
 requires a court order here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59420

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:04:26 +0000, Chris in Makati wrote:

> If you want to claim something is legal or illegal please state which
> country/countries you're referring to.

And, even in, oh, say, "two party states", there _still_ are exceptions,
e.g., for situations of abuse.

Since Joerg Lorenz' comments are patently ridiculous, only one or more of
the following situations _can_ possibly apply (IMHO):
o Either Joerg Lorenze is really that unfathomably stupid, or, 
o Joerg Lorenz is simply pulling our leg, or, 
o Joerg Lorenz actually _believes_ he comprehends the situation accurately.

One or more _must_ apply.
o All of which tell us that nothing Joerg Lorenz says is that of an adult.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59421

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:13:52 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> This is illegal. The consent of the callee is necessary.

It's the same as if Joerg Lorenz claimed the moon is made out of cheese.
o No amount of actual fact will sway Joerg Lorenz from imaginary beliefs

To be fair, it' a waste of time for any adult to attempt an intelligent 
conversation with Joerg Lorenz.
o He's convinced the lemon juice worked despite all evidence otherwise.

*Joerg Lorenz is a _perfect_ example of left side Dunning-Kruger brains.*

Why they consistently and incessantly prove that point, is amazing.
o Essentially, their mind is wired as a "left side of mount stupid" DK mind
o They own confidence - but not comprehension.
 <https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>

The reason they have _never_ once added value to any thread, is simple:
o They are not just stupid... they _remain_ ignorant their entire lives.
o They revel as that of a child... which is why they chitchat well together
o They can't comprehend fact... yet, they _think_ they do! <== dangerous!
 <https://understandinginnovation.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/dunning-kruger-0011.jpg>

In essence, they own the epitome of the lemon-juice bank robber's mind.
<https://scanfoam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/adpativeDKblog3.jpg>

These are the well known compatriots of the lemon-juice robber mindset:
o Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
o BK@Onramp.net
o Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
o Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
o "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid>
o Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> (sometimes, rarely, he posts as an adult)
o Davoud <star@sky.net>
o Diesel <me@privacy.net> (aka Dustin Cook)
o Elden <usenet@moondog.org>
o *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>
o Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz>
o joe <none@domain.invalid> (rarely, but sometimes posts as an adult)
o Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JHvB@nospam.invalid>
o John Doe <always.look@message.header>
o Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
o Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com>
o Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Nil <rednoise9@REMOVETHIScomcast.net>
o nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> [He's the remaining enigma]
o Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca>
o "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> (aka Rudy Wieser)
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> [He's not as dumb as most]
o Snit (the only poster in decades that I had to killfile!)
o Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net>
o Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
o Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
o et al.

To be fair, call recording is clearly too difficult of a question for them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59373

Am 27.01.19 um 08:31 schrieb VanguardLH:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> 
>> Ian:
>>
>>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
>>
>> They are simply illegal.
> The choice by Google is their own choice and not based
> on the legality of recording calls.

That will kill them and I'll help to kill them. What is legal or illegal 
is determined by Parliaments and not companies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59423

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Am 27.01.19 um 08:31 schrieb VanguardLH:
>> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> 
>>> Ian:
>>>
>>>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>>>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
>>>
>>> They are simply illegal.
>> The choice by Google is their own choice and not based
>> on the legality of recording calls.
> 
> That will kill them and I'll help to kill them. What is legal or illegal 
> is determined by Parliaments and not companies.

The problem with your post(s) is that you are ASSUMING Google made the
change due to legalities.  You have nothing to back up that claim.  From
my reading of Google's API and the change for Android Pie, it seems
Google considers backgrounded apps that record calls a security issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59424

On 28/01/2019 03.03, VanguardLH wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> 
>> Am 27.01.19 um 08:31 schrieb VanguardLH:
>>> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian:
>>>>
>>>>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>>>>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
>>>>
>>>> They are simply illegal.
>>> The choice by Google is their own choice and not based
>>> on the legality of recording calls.
>>
>> That will kill them and I'll help to kill them. What is legal or illegal 
>> is determined by Parliaments and not companies.
> 
> The problem with your post(s) is that you are ASSUMING Google made the
> change due to legalities.  You have nothing to back up that claim.  From
> my reading of Google's API and the change for Android Pie, it seems
> Google considers backgrounded apps that record calls a security issue.

Yep.

Also, someone installing such a tool on somebody else's phone and
listening to those conversations, without they knowing.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59425

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 03:54:12 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Also, someone installing such a tool on somebody else's phone and
> listening to those conversations, without they knowing.

I don't have Android 9 (I'm on 7) where I hope there's a way for the
"owner" of the phone to set it up if they want it (sans rooting).

There might not be though ... which means that rooting becomes more
important if that (and SMB servers) is what people want to do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59375

On 27/01/2019 08.31, VanguardLH wrote:

...

Re legality. Here sometimes companies call us and say they are going to
record the call for legal reasons, for contracting some service, say. If
they are recording, so we can.

> That apps can no longer record incoming calls has nothing to do with
> legality.  It all has to do with Google deciding to remove some or all
> of an API that the apps used to record the calls (instead of the apps
> using their own code which may require rooting the phone).
> 
> https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/media/mediarecorder
> 
>   RECORD_AUDIO is considered a "dangerous" permission because it may 
>   pose a risk to the user's privacy.
> 
> As of Android 6, users got prompted when an app wanted access to a
> dangerous permission, and at some point Google decided to prompt the
> user on all of what permissions an app can have.  This didn't meant
> users were instantly and magically educated about the permissions but
> they were told an app wanted one, or more.  An app, for example, could
> run in the background and record all your calls, not just the calls you
> chose to record, and even send the recordings to somewhere.
> 
> Google did NOT disable the ability of apps to record a call in Android 9
> Pie.  What they did was change the API so *background* apps could no
> longer keep recording the incoming calls.  The user now has to take
> overt action to record a call and that meant the app must be
> foregrounded.

Ah?

> 
>   (from the above article)
>   Note: On devices running Android 9 (API level 28) or higher, apps 
>   running in the background cannot access the microphone. Therefore, 
>   your app should record audio only when it's in the foreground or when 
>   you include an instance of MediaRecorder in a foreground service.

What about the microphone apps, to record a speech, say?
Here some people use it, covertly, to record what the boss says and have
proof (example).


> That means your recording app must be foregrounded for it to record the
> call, not hiding as either a backgrounded app or running as a service.
> The recording app must now change from a hidden and automatic recording
> app to itself being a dialer that you use to make the outgoing call or
> as a substitute "phone" app that appears for you to accept an incoming
> call.  There might be other means of getting the app to appear and in
> the foreground when a new call comes in but the obvious one is to use a
> Phone app to take the incoming calls and which adds a recording option.  

Looks good to me.


> Recording apps that only record are going to get killed.  Those single-
> purpose backgrounded apps that only record a call won't work, anymore.
> However, as a phone app that has you decided to take the call and is
> foregrounded then those can still record your calls.  Or you root your
> phone to get around the limitation.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59487

Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Re legality. Here sometimes companies call us and say they are going to
> record the call for legal reasons, for contracting some service, say. If
> they are recording, so we can.

Here it's pretty common for big companies. The usual "argument" is
"for training purposes". Reality is often to have proof that you
have cosed an agreement, inferring that from something you've said
wrong, said unclearly, suggested, etc.
Here it's legally allowed to record a phone conversation, provided
you are participant in that conversation, and with the restriction
that you may only use it privately or as legal proof. Publication
is illegal.

-p

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59390

In article <1cpvz6tqrx1x2.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> >> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
> >> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
> > 
> > They are simply illegal.
> 
> Not true.  If the callee identifies to the caller that the call is being
> recorded and the caller agrees then there is illegality. 

you mean legality. if both parties consent to being recorded, it's
*legal*. in some places, only one party needs to consent. 

> If the call
> has a repeated beep to identify the call is being recorded then that is
> not an illegal recording.  Providers still offer the service to record
> incoming calls.  The choice by Google is their own choice and not based
> on the legality of recording calls.

yes it very definitely is. 

they have no way to guarantee that all parties involved have consented,
or if they're even where they appear to be which being a mobile device,
can change. 

> The OP never mentioned from which country the calls originated.  So
> neither you or I can address is recording the call is illegal on a
> global basis.  We can only speak regarding what is allowed in our own
> country.  The callee is only responsible to comply with the laws of his
> locality, state, or country, not with those of the caller.

nope. if a callee is in a one-party consent state and calls someone in
a two-party consent state, the latter applies and both parties must
consent.

> Google has many times giveth and then taketh away.  Some apps used to
> monitor for spam calls and they could also monitor for spam texts.  That
> was up to Android 4.4.3 which thereafter the anti-spam apps could only
> see the source of the call and no longer could see the source of a text,
> yet lots of those anti-spam apps still declare then can block spam
> texts.

no need to record a call to do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59378

On 1/27/2019 1:29 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 26.01.19 um 19:48 schrieb Ian:
>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
> 
> They are simply illegal.

Call recording is not, on the face of it, illegal. Recording _may_ be 
illegal depending on where it is being done and the locations of the 
parties and whether notifications are required/given and whether beep tones 
are overlaid but mere recording is not _universally_ illegal. Some 
jurisdictions are paranoid about it and virtually outlaw it under all 
circumstances while others just don't care or have never gotten around to 
even thinking about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59380

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 07:29:14 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> They are simply illegal.

Maybe in your country, but what about elsewhere?

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web