[quote=“vq30de,post:344,topic:30584"”]
N.Y. Penal Law ?? 250.00, 250.05: It is a Class E felony to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation.
Cordless telephone conversations that are partially broadcast over ordinary radio waves are protected by the wiretapping and eavesdropping laws and require the same consent for recording as any other communication. New York v. Fata, 559 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990).
State courts have held that newspapers that published transcripts of an illegally recorded telephone conversation were subject to civil liability when “the newspapers knew they were dealing with recorded conversations between unconsenting parties.” Natoli v. Sullivan, 606 N.Y.S.2d 504 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oswego County 1993), aff’d, 616 N.Y.S.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994).
however
In light of the differing state laws governing electronic recording of conversations between private parties, journalists are advised to err on the side of caution when recording or disclosing an interstate telephone call. The safest strategy is to assume that the stricter state law will apply.
For example, a reporter located in the District of Columbia who records a telephone conversation without the consent of a party located in Maryland would not violate District of Columbia law, but could be liable under Maryland law. A court located in the District of Columbia may apply Maryland law, depending on its “conflict of laws” rules. Therefore, an aggrieved party may choose to file suit in either jurisdiction, depending on which law is more favorable to the party s claim.
and
S.C. Code Ann. ?? 17-30-20, 17-30-30: It is a felony to intercept, disclose or use a wire, electronic or oral communication, unless it is done with the consent of at least one party to the communication.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” S.C. Code Ann. ? 17-30-15.
Anyone whose communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages in the amount of $500 per day of violation or $25,000, whichever is greater, and also can recover punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. S.C. Code Ann. ? 17-30-135.
I think all that means were clear to record all we want…
[/quote]
Agreed, those are just anti-wiretapping laws. You can record the phone call.