Hidden Call Recording

Why Do We Need Hidden Call Recording?

In most cases, the secret recording of telephone conversations is practiced by a company’s security service and initiated by its owner or top management, along with the introduction of a virtual ATS. The aim of the secret recording of conversations is:

1) Control of working hours of employees. “Wiretapping” in the office prevents inefficient use of work time for personal conversations

2) Monitoring the integrity of employees and tracking any risks associated with information leakage

3) Tracking of all outgoing calls made at company expense and logging those that lead to financial losses for the company

4) Assessment of employees loyalty to the company and management.

Today there is no definitive opinion on the ethics behind the “wiretapping” of a company's own employees. Many companies warn their employees about it during interviews. Some inform employees about possible secret recording on corporate portals, while others may even include this point in job descriptions, prompting the employee to sign and confirm their agreement at that early stage. At the same time, some companies secretly “wire” their office. The legality of such actions on the company's part is subject to opinion now more than ever.

The Grounds, Causes and Consequences of “Wiretapping”

Of course, owners and top managers are those most interested in “wiring” their offices because it is important that they monitor everything taking place within them. Call recording systems are integrated into many company networks without employees nor relevant agencies being aware. Via these setups, both outgoing and incoming calls can be logged.

If you assess this situation legally, you must pay attention to the following.

First, legislation may not include rules prohibiting the recording of conversations without consent of parties involved. During the recording process, dispatchers and operators are not required to warn subscribers that conversations are being recorded. But to improve procedural ethics, it is recommended to include corresponding warnings within the company's internal orders.

Second, the company employee is the injured party in cases of “wiring.” The responsibility for conversations lies solely with the company director. From a legal perspective, this can be classified as interference with an employee’s personal life. That's why it's recommended to have the consent of operators and dispatchers for possible wiretapping of conversations.

Legal Loopholes for “Wiretapping"

Some constitutions around the world have a clearly indicated term known as “secrecy of communication,” the inalienable right of a citizen to have secret messaging, telephone conversations and other communications. But there are certain nuances:

1) Disclosure of personal information and access of a third party to personal information are separate legal categories

2) “Secrecy of communication” applies not only to personal life but work-related contacts, especially if the employee has not given permission to company management

3) "Secrecy of communication" is a constitutional human right and the Constitution is above other laws and regulations.

When organising unauthorised “wiretapping” of employees, it must be taken into account that, according to the Criminal Codes of most countries, the violation of communication secrets has consequences. This category includes both postscript and telephone conversations. Communications laws of different countries also confirm the right of citizens to personal communication.

Conclusion

If the information received in the "wiring" process is somehow disseminated without the knowledge of conversation participants, such an action is punishable in accordance with the applicable laws of European countries. Nevertheless, there is a “loophole” that allows “wiretapping” provided that information is not published or disseminated. In such cases the company, which functions as a “spy” on virtual ATSs, walks a fine line between legal and illegal activity. Therefore, it all depends on how the received information will be used.

Thus, the employer can only record telephone conversations if:

1) Recording is done openly and all employees are notified of the activity

2) Information received during "wiretapping" is not disclosed to third parties.

Can data obtained as a result of secret recording be used in court? It is believed that an illegally recorded conversation cannot be presented as evidence during a trial. However, in practice, everything looks a little different. In accordance with the law, evidence obtained this way will be reviewed by the court regardless and, if circumstances justify the need for such recordings then the recorder of such evidence will not be punished. In any case, the court is flexible and listens to the testimonies of all parties, including third parties. But you should remember that such a record may not be entered as evidence for the case if traces of editing are found. CloudPBX Dzinga packages include the recording feature.

Tip

To get started, please fill in all the fields and accept the Terms and Conditions.

×
Tip

To complete the registration, please enter the verification code we sent via SMS, or request a new code.

×