Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Customer takes Bell to court and wins

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#61

Post by TallGuyShort »

grizzles wrote: post #57
TallGuyShort wrote: post #4

>> In a move that was pivotal to his legal case, he requested a transcript of the call I take advantage of the fact that the companies who seem to be the most frustrating to deal with, are courteous enough to begin each phone call stating that "calls may be recorded." I have a call recording app on my phone and on at least 3 occasions I have had a company immediately escalate a phone call to a person who immediately…

What phone / app do you use? I've wanted this feature since forever. I just tried installing a few high rated android apps on my new android phone and so far nothing records my counterparts side of the conversation.

See my reply to deepsun's comment on this thread.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#62

Post by vivekd »

As a Canadian it makes me elated to see one of our big broadcasting oligopolies take a hit. What caught my eye was :

>Undeterred, Ramsay filed a complaint with the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (the CCTS), a moderator between customers and telecom providers.

>In a lengthy email exchange, a spokesperson for the CCTS insisted that Bell had the right to increase prices and since the telecom had notified Ramsay of this fact — as well as an upcoming price increase — it ruled that the telecom provider met its obligations and no further investigation was warranted.

CCTS is a part of hte CRTC here in Canada which is a government institution that's supposed to regulate broadcasting and telecom in order to protect Canadian customers. In recent years, they've helped broadcasters fix prices by having them meet and agree on base prices. They've also made prices more expensive for Canadians by working to keep out foreign competition and limit internal competition.

In the one instance where it was asked to actually protect a customer against clearly illegal behavior - they didn't seem to care at all, demonstrating that the CTRC is a taxpayer funded entity here to help the telecom giants and not the taxpayers who fund them.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#63

Post by TallGuyShort »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #49
TallGuyShort wrote: post #4

>> In a move that was pivotal to his legal case, he requested a transcript of the call I take advantage of the fact that the companies who seem to be the most frustrating to deal with, are courteous enough to begin each phone call stating that "calls may be recorded." I have a call recording app on my phone and on at least 3 occasions I have had a company immediately escalate a phone call to a person who immediately…

> That's why I like it when companies tell me they're recording - then I have a green light. I'm not sure them having permission to record implies you also having permission to record in all-party-consent states. I would appreciate a source stating otherwise.

The phrase "this call may be recorded" is literally granting permission.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#64

Post by throwaway613834 »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #63
throwaway613834 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why I like it when companies tell me they're recording - then I have a green light. I'm not sure them having permission to record implies you also having permission to record in all-party-consent states. I would appreciate a source stating otherwise.

The phrase "this call may be recorded" is literally granting permission.

To themselves, not you. And in the "might" sense, not in the "permitted" sense.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#65

Post by chrischen »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #64
TallGuyShort wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "this call may be recorded" is literally granting permission.

To themselves, not you. And in the "might" sense, not in the "permitted" sense.

But they're disclosing the call is recorded, for all parties. Maybe you can slot in a "likewise" or "ditto" into it.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#66

Post by TallGuyShort »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #64
TallGuyShort wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "this call may be recorded" is literally granting permission.

To themselves, not you. And in the "might" sense, not in the "permitted" sense.

No - they can't escape the literal meaning of the words. "May I use your restroom?" "Yes, you may use the restroom." Meaning is clear. "This call may be recorded." I'm sorry, that's consent. If they want to argue that their intent is otherwise once I produce my recording that's up to them, but by the literal meaning of their words in the English language they have definitely granted consent.

And as a side note, all of my recordings include me stating on the call that I am also recording. They don't hear me because it's a machine, but they used a machine to get my consent and assume I gave it because I remain on the line, but they also remain on the line after stating it's being recorded. They really have no leg to stand on if they want to fight me on it.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#67

Post by chrischen »

lechiffre10 wrote: post #2

All crooks. As a Canadian, it's a shame that so many choose to just accept circumstances regarding Telecoms and other companies. We get royally screwed and no one seems to care. I'm so glad I decided to cut my contract with my phone company two years ago.

I was dumbfounded when Canadians told me not only they were still paying for a thing called "long distance", but their cell phones charged for out-of-province calls!

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#68

Post by throwaway613834 »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #66
throwaway613834 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To themselves, not you. And in the "might" sense, not in the "permitted" sense.

No - they can't escape the literal meaning of the words. "May I use your restroom?" "Yes, you may use the restroom." Meaning is clear. "This call may be recorded." I'm sorry, that's consent. If they want to argue that their intent is otherwise once I produce my recording that's up to them, but by the literal meaning of their words in the English language they have definitely granted consent. And as a side note, all o…

You really think a judge is going to buy this?

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#69

Post by TallGuyShort »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #68
TallGuyShort wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - they can't escape the literal meaning of the words. "May I use your restroom?" "Yes, you may use the restroom." Meaning is clear. "This call may be recorded." I'm sorry, that's consent. If they want to argue that their intent is otherwise once I produce my recording that's up to them, but by the literal meaning of their words in the English language they have definitely granted consent. And as a side note, all o…

You really think a judge is going to buy this?

There's nothing to buy. This is the kind of mental olympics a judge would have to go to to give me jail time over this: 1. Decide that a phone-call with me, who lives in a one-party consent state, must be governed by the laws of the all-party consent state the company, who recorded the call themselves, is based in. I'm aware of no precedent even close to this. But wait! There's more! 2. Decide that a person can consent to keep their own recording, but not consent to others keeping their own recording, all implicitly. 3. Decide that an automated machine is sufficient to get my consent, but not the consent of the owner of the machine that's actually doing what they will claim they're not consenting to. 4. Decide that words that literally grant consent are not consent, or that me holding them to their word is not literally fulfilling the stated purpose of improving their customer service. 5. Deal with the fact that I will gladly be found in contempt of court telling the judge to go fuck his or her respective self trying to get media coverage of this stupid decision.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#70

Post by khedoros1 »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #68
TallGuyShort wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - they can't escape the literal meaning of the words. "May I use your restroom?" "Yes, you may use the restroom." Meaning is clear. "This call may be recorded." I'm sorry, that's consent. If they want to argue that their intent is otherwise once I produce my recording that's up to them, but by the literal meaning of their words in the English language they have definitely granted consent. And as a side note, all o…

You really think a judge is going to buy this?

I would've assumed that the company stating that the conversation would be recorded would already be their implied consent to all parties of the conversation recording it...but assumptions and law don't go well together.
Post reply on HN