Need advice/info for debt collector calls.

[sjfcontrol]

. . .
I going to buy a boat horn.
Again thanks everyone for the help. I'll update with any significant info as we proceed;

BTW during the original call I was contradicting what the guy was stating and repeatedly advised her to hang up. She tries to be nice to people but said next time she'll take my advice. WOW!

Don't bother with a boat horn, telephone systems limit the volume transmitted.

Jim, My wife had our home phone number programed in her IPhone so it showed up as "Home" when the phone rang. Does the caller ID function on phones use simple numeric recognition?

iPhones display the contact name if the number is found in your contact list. Otherwise displays the number and maybe the general location.

[puma guy]

. . .
I going to buy a boat horn.
Again thanks everyone for the help. I'll update with any significant info as we proceed;

BTW during the original call I was contradicting what the guy was stating and repeatedly advised her to hang up. She tries to be nice to people but said next time she'll take my advice. WOW!

Don't bother with a boat horn, telephone systems limit the volume transmitted.

Jim, My wife had our home phone number programed in her IPhone so it showed up as "Home" when the phone rang. Does the caller ID function on phones use simple numeric recognition?

iPhones display the contact name if the number is found in your contact list. Otherwise displays the number and maybe the general location.

So when a number is spoofed to call from a different number using Voip mentioned here, the receiving phone simply recognizes it as the number saved in the phone with any name/address programed in the phone.

[JALLEN]

JAllen, is the info on these sites incorrect?

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/texas-recording-law

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/recording-te ... versations

Also, if someone spoofs the caller ID to make it appear to be a local number, I don't see a problem.

I really don't know if these are accurate, or complete.

What I think is right is that you can tape with the consent of all parties, and for most legitimate purposes, I see no reason to do otherwise.

I don't know why spoofing is a criminal problem. Sneaky but hardly criminal AFAIK.

[Pawpaw]

. . .
I going to buy a boat horn.
Again thanks everyone for the help. I'll update with any significant info as we proceed;

BTW during the original call I was contradicting what the guy was stating and repeatedly advised her to hang up. She tries to be nice to people but said next time she'll take my advice. WOW!

Don't bother with a boat horn, telephone systems limit the volume transmitted.

But even that maximum limit hurts when you're using a headset.

To maximize the effect you can speak softly, hoping to suck the other party into turning up the volume on their headset.

How liable would one be if permanent hearing damage was done?

I've never run across a headset that would produce that much volume.

[ScottDLS]

Texas a one party state so you can record without notification an incoming call. TCPA applies if the COLLECTION COMPANY is recording (they won't), and allows you to revoke permission for recording, if you are the one called.

I have a DC cell phone for work that apparently previously belonged to someone who didn't pay their bills. From what I can tell LEGITIMATE collection companies are happy to take your number off their list if you are not the one being called, bc they are (presumably) wasting time. The rest I just block or hang up on. Lot's using CALL ID spoofing these days. I tried it too... and call my home with the published number of the CIA or FBI just for grins.

These Evergreen creeps sound like their itching for a FDCP $1000 lawsuit. If you have time to have some fun, let them start on some of their illegal threats while you are recording and keep them online gathering as much info as possible for the suit. File the suit in small claims court, collect a default judgement when they don't show. Take the court order and do a little "google foo" to see if you can find wherever they have any assets, and start filing liens and collection actions in those jurisdictions. It can usually be done for minimal cost if you have time to burn. I've heard of a few folks who made a pretty penny by doing this...but they had to be persistent.

My hobby, on the other hand, is collecting out of state concealed carry licenses...

[mojo84]

JAllen, is the info on these sites incorrect?

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/texas-recording-law

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/recording-te ... versations

Also, if someone spoofs the caller ID to make it appear to be a local number, I don't see a problem.

I really don't know if these are accurate, or complete.

What I think is right is that you can tape with the consent of all parties, and for most legitimate purposes, I see no reason to do otherwise.

I don't know why spoofing is a criminal problem. Sneaky but hardly criminal AFAIK.

I didn't say spoofing was illegal. My point was that it misrepresents the area code from where the call is originating and misrepresents who is calling. I am not sure misrepresentation of whom a debt collector is is legal.

Whether you think it's proper or not, only one party of the call has to know and consent to the call being recorded based on Texas law. The FCC does not regulate the recording of calls when the recording party is one of the parties to the call.

I'm confused why you are so adamant about it being wrong or unlawful but you don't provide any supporting info. Can you help me understand?

[mojo84]

. . .
I going to buy a boat horn.
Again thanks everyone for the help. I'll update with any significant info as we proceed;

BTW during the original call I was contradicting what the guy was stating and repeatedly advised her to hang up. She tries to be nice to people but said next time she'll take my advice. WOW!

Don't bother with a boat horn, telephone systems limit the volume transmitted.

But even that maximum limit hurts when you're using a headset.

To maximize the effect you can speak softly, hoping to suck the other party into turning up the volume on their headset.

How liable would one be if permanent hearing damage was done?

I've never run across a headset that would produce that much volume.

If it is loud enough to hurt as you say, it could do damage and you may be held liable if that is the case. I'm only basing my comments on your comments and suggestion.

[G.A. Heath]

With Texas it is perfectly legal to record a conversation as long as one party is aware of the conversation. With phone calls it gets a little complicated because one party may be in another state. If the other party is in another state then where does the conversation occur? Does it take place in Texas, or in the other state? This is critical to know because you need to know what laws apply to the recording of the conversation prior to recording. This may not seem like a major pitfall BUT when you end up in a federal court in regards to a federal complaint the case can be tossed and criminal charges filed against the recording party, although that is not likely as the RECORDING happened in Texas where we have one party consent. Keep in mind that my information is based on information available to/from other podcast hosts and is geared toward all parties being aware of the recording.

[JALLEN]

With Texas it is perfectly legal to record a conversation as long as one party is aware of the conversation. With phone calls it gets a little complicated because one party may be in another state. If the other party is in another state then where does the conversation occur? Does it take place in Texas, or in the other state? This is critical to know because you need to know what laws apply to the recording of the conversation prior to recording. This may not seem like a major pitfall BUT when you end up in a federal court in regards to a federal complaint the case can be tossed and criminal charges filed against the recording party, although that is not likely as the RECORDING happened in Texas where we have one party consent. Keep in mind that my information is based on information available to/from other podcast hosts and is geared toward all parties being aware of the recording.

I think you mean "one party is aware of the taping." If only one party is aware of the conversation, you must be talking to one of your teenage kids.

It would be good to base the information on what the law actually is instead of who ever podcasts hosts are say it might be.

[oohrah]

If you are one of the conversants, then you are the one party, and that is all that is required for Texas to record the call.

[thatguyoverthere]

Whether Texas does or does not require notification of phone recording for both parties, why not go ahead and tell the collection agency that you ARE recording the conversation? Seems like the worst that could happen would be that they say they don't want to be recorded, then you say you don't want to talk the them without recording and hang up. Or maybe the fact that they know they are being recorded might put them on a little better behavior. Seems like a win-win to me, or as much so as you can get in dealing with a collection agency.

Whatever you come up with, good luck with it puma guy.

[G.A. Heath]

With Texas it is perfectly legal to record a conversation as long as one party is aware of the conversation. With phone calls it gets a little complicated because one party may be in another state. If the other party is in another state then where does the conversation occur? Does it take place in Texas, or in the other state? This is critical to know because you need to know what laws apply to the recording of the conversation prior to recording. This may not seem like a major pitfall BUT when you end up in a federal court in regards to a federal complaint the case can be tossed and criminal charges filed against the recording party, although that is not likely as the RECORDING happened in Texas where we have one party consent. Keep in mind that my information is based on information available to/from other podcast hosts and is geared toward all parties being aware of the recording.

I think you mean "one party is aware of the taping." If only one party is aware of the conversation, you must be talking to one of your teenage kids.

It would be good to base the information on what the law actually is instead of who ever podcasts hosts are say it might be.

You are correct sir, typing, editing, and other tasks relating to posting with a phone while under stress leads to weirdness like that.

-- Edit to correct spelling errors

[JALLEN]

JAllen, is the info on these sites incorrect?

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/texas-recording-law

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/recording-te ... versations

Also, if someone spoofs the caller ID to make it appear to be a local number, I don't see a problem.

I really don't know if these are accurate, or complete.

What I think is right is that you can tape with the consent of all parties, and for most legitimate purposes, I see no reason to do otherwise.

I don't know why spoofing is a criminal problem. Sneaky but hardly criminal AFAIK.

I didn't say spoofing was illegal. My point was that it misrepresents the area code from where the call is originating and misrepresents who is calling. I am not sure misrepresentation of whom a debt collector is is legal.

Whether you think it's proper or not, only one party of the call has to know and consent to the call being recorded based on Texas law. The FCC does not regulate the recording of calls when the recording party is one of the parties to the call.

I'm confused why you are so adamant about it being wrong or unlawful but you don't provide any supporting info. Can you help me understand?

I'm not sure I understand what I am being so adamant about. Maybe it's like Aunt Gracie would say, "I misunderstood what you read." Or something.

I know of no law about spoofing.

Taping of calls isn't regulated by the FCC as far as I know. There are laws in each state regarding this. 12 of them appear to require either two party, or all party consent to recording. The rest require only one party. What happens when the call is between a party in a two party state and a party in a one party state? The only court case I know of is a California case where they held that the law of the most stringent state applied. That was California, of course. The Federal law is one party consent required. I'm not sure when this applies, maybe in D.C.

In every case, if all parties consent to recording, you are in the clear. That's the way to go.

[mojo84]

JAllen, is the info on these sites incorrect?

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/texas-recording-law

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/recording-te ... versations

Also, if someone spoofs the caller ID to make it appear to be a local number, I don't see a problem.

I really don't know if these are accurate, or complete.

What I think is right is that you can tape with the consent of all parties, and for most legitimate purposes, I see no reason to do otherwise.

I don't know why spoofing is a criminal problem. Sneaky but hardly criminal AFAIK.

I didn't say spoofing was illegal. My point was that it misrepresents the area code from where the call is originating and misrepresents who is calling. I am not sure misrepresentation of whom a debt collector is is legal.

Whether you think it's proper or not, only one party of the call has to know and consent to the call being recorded based on Texas law. The FCC does not regulate the recording of calls when the recording party is one of the parties to the call.

I'm confused why you are so adamant about it being wrong or unlawful but you don't provide any supporting info. Can you help me understand?

I'm not sure I understand what I am being so adamant about. Maybe it's like Aunt Gracie would say, "I misunderstood what you read." Or something.

I know of no law about spoofing.

Taping of calls isn't regulated by the FCC as far as I know. There are laws in each state regarding this. 12 of them appear to require either two party, or all party consent to recording. The rest require only one party. What happens when the call is between a party in a two party state and a party in a one party state? The only court case I know of is a California case where they held that the law of the most stringent state applied. That was California, of course. The Federal law is one party consent required. I'm not sure when this applies, maybe in D.C.

In every case, if all parties consent to recording, you are in the clear. That's the way to go.

If they misrepresent their area code and phone number, how am I to know they are calling from a two party state. Now, If I originate the call to a two party state I see your point. If they call me and misrepresent themselves, why should I be held accountable? I understand your preference is for all parties to consent but that is not the law.

Apparently, it isn't as big a deal since you only know of one case and it was in California.

Here is the FCC comments on spoofing. https://www.fcc.gov/spoofing

[Glockster]

JAllen, is the info on these sites incorrect?

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/texas-recording-law

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/recording-te ... versations

Also, if someone spoofs the caller ID to make it appear to be a local number, I don't see a problem.

I really don't know if these are accurate, or complete.

What I think is right is that you can tape with the consent of all parties, and for most legitimate purposes, I see no reason to do otherwise.

I don't know why spoofing is a criminal problem. Sneaky but hardly criminal AFAIK.

I didn't say spoofing was illegal. My point was that it misrepresents the area code from where the call is originating and misrepresents who is calling. I am not sure misrepresentation of whom a debt collector is is legal.

Whether you think it's proper or not, only one party of the call has to know and consent to the call being recorded based on Texas law. The FCC does not regulate the recording of calls when the recording party is one of the parties to the call.

I'm confused why you are so adamant about it being wrong or unlawful but you don't provide any supporting info. Can you help me understand?

I'm not sure I understand what I am being so adamant about. Maybe it's like Aunt Gracie would say, "I misunderstood what you read." Or something.

I know of no law about spoofing.

Taping of calls isn't regulated by the FCC as far as I know. There are laws in each state regarding this. 12 of them appear to require either two party, or all party consent to recording. The rest require only one party. What happens when the call is between a party in a two party state and a party in a one party state? The only court case I know of is a California case where they held that the law of the most stringent state applied. That was California, of course. The Federal law is one party consent required. I'm not sure when this applies, maybe in D.C.

In every case, if all parties consent to recording, you are in the clear. That's the way to go.

Spoofing is fraud. As mojo cites, according to the FCC:

"Under the Truth in Caller ID Act, FCC rules:

- Prohibit any person or entity from transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.
- Subject violators to a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of the rules."