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

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#71

Post by TwoNineFive »

wkearney99 wrote: post #12
TallGuyShort wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine is called "Call Recorder - ACR" on Google Play. I've had that same problem before - the Android permissions relevant to this type of app have changed through various versions and on different phones - there's a different combination of settings you need depending on your device - they have a help page about it that I had to play around with before I got it to work again after an upgrade. edit: If you have a good…

Got a link to that particular app? Name games on the play store make it worth following a known-good link instead of just searching for text...

For Android, I use skvalex call recorder. It costs $10, which is "relatively" expensive for Android apps, but it's worth it. I bought it years ago and it has been recording my calls ever since. Other call recording apps were either spyware/adware traps or were just terrible.

For me, no other call recording app worked because of the hardware I had. Some phones make call recording easy and some make it nearly impossible. I hear that recent phones are much better than phones from two or more years ago.

Some of the features that make the skvalex app better than anything else I tried are automatic recording all the time, detailed recording meta info, automatic file encryption, automatic recording cleanup, and I find the UI design to be utility oriented, which is a good thing.

Note that previous versions of the app were removed from the Google Play Store because they used prohibited methods to record calls on devices that don't have official call recording APIs. The new app is labeled as a beta/test, but it's very stable.

Note that if your phone doesn't work with the app in the Google Play Store, you need to install the CallRecorderROOT apk module, which you can only get from the XDA forum post. You don't need the CallRecorderROOT apk if your phone works with the standard API, which many do these days.

https://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1441643

Finally, using this app has paid off immensely. There are a couple of particular vendors I work with (Notably Cisco Systems) that have fking awful support, and I've dug out recordings of their terrible phone support calls and put it in front of our reps in group meetings. Being able to put the embarrassing behavior of their support reps in front of them gets an immediate attitude adjustment, and in my case, our support tier was bumped up to top-tier status and I've never had a problematic call since. Yes, depending on how much you pay or how big a customer you are determines which group of phone droids your call gets routed to.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#72

Post by Casseres »

Spoom wrote: post #28
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…

I'm guessing companies will eventually change the message to say that they're recording, and place their call center in a two party state, so you have to request their permission to record on your end (which they will decline).

Companies usually play that disclaimer via robot.

Does the law say I have to give notice when I think there's an actual human on the other end, or can I give notice when the robot pauses? The robot isn't verifying that there's an actual human on my end.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#73

Post by walrus01 »

Tip for Canadian consumers: ALL OF CANADA is a one party consent jurisdiction for phone and conversation recording. Not like the US where law varies state by state. If you run your own VoIP system or otherwise set up call recording on your own phone, you are fine to record and store whatever you want without informing the other party.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#74

Post by walrus01 »

scrollaway wrote: post #19
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…

Many companies' CSRs are under strict instructions to hang up if they ever get so much as a hint that the conversation may be recorded. I find it utterly disgusting. Online chats, emails etc will always be recorded, why are companies so scared of their phone support being recorded? I hope at some point we get regulation requiring companies to share recorded phonecalls with their customers when they demand it. (I'm no…

All of Canada is a one party consent jurisdiction for phone call recording. You (the consumer) do not need to inform the other end.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#76

Post by rasz »

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.

After hearing "calls may be recorded." simply repeat in casual manner "this call is recorded", done.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#77

Post by JesseWright »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #7
deepsun wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What app is that? I've found that none of Play Store apps can record the other party, only my own voice.

Mine is called "Call Recorder - ACR" on Google Play. I've had that same problem before - the Android permissions relevant to this type of app have changed through various versions and on different phones - there's a different combination of settings you need depending on your device - they have a help page about it that I had to play around with before I got it to work again after an upgrade. edit: If you have a good…

I definitely second ACR. I use it and have it set up to record literally every phone call I make or receive. (You might need to be mindful of espionage laws depending on where you live, as some states/countries might require consent from both parties.)

I'd strongly suggest everyone record their phone calls with any kind of company or business, especially larger corporations. It's a good way to make sure they can't renege once they've promised you something.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#78

Post by chrismcb »

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.

If it is a two party starts, and they are recording... That means they have given their permission to record. Therefore you can record. By saying they are recording they are giving implied consent (otherwise they wouldn't be able to record)

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#79

Post by wolco »

UseStrict wrote: post #59
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.

And the big 3 keep pushing. All pushing up fees for internet, cable, etc in lockstep. Lying on contracts, using misleading advertising for initial terms, not following guidelines or laws. None of them offering truly competitive rates. The agencies that are meant to handle complaints and regulations do so half-heartedly. It's bad when my phone bill dominates my monthly expenses, second only to rent.

ooma phone/product might be perfect for you. $4.00 a month and you buy the device. Most features included.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#80

Post by chrismcb »

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?

Yes. If they are recording, then they've given their consent to be recorded. There is no "I gave consent to be recorded by me but not by the other party"
Post reply on HN