OBi202 as a Voice message system using a USB key (No computer required)
Rick:
Quote from: JohnBowler on June 27, 2012, 09:06:37 am
Quote from: Rick on June 27, 2012, 06:10:19 am
So you want to record calls without announcing to the person on the other end that you are recording the call?
Rick goes on to cite a reference to the Federal laws about recording conversations and the confusing array of State laws.
I live in Oregon, and any recording I make would be made in Oregon.
The problem here is that GV is imposing a blanket set of rules that assume:
1) Recording of an incoming call must be announced.
2) Recording of an outgoing call is not permitted.
It's kind of like Ford (a US manufacturer of motor vehicles) speed limiting all it's cars to 55mph because that is the maximum in *some* States.
John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>
Regardless of the laws in any given state, I would consider it common courtesy to inform/ask someone that you would be recording a call. Recording a call without doing that would be, in my opinion, a violation of that person's privacy. One does not have an expectation that a phone call would be recorded.
Lavarock7:
SOme states only require 1 party to agree to a telephone recording.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws
JohnBowler:
Quote from: Rick on June 27, 2012, 10:32:19 am
Regardless of the laws in any given state, I would consider it common courtesy to inform/ask someone that you would be recording a call. Recording a call without doing that would be, in my opinion, a violation of that person's privacy. One does not have an expectation that a phone call would be recorded.
Well, we disagree, as people often do. For what it's worth (not much, I admit) my definition of a private act is one that remains known only to a specific group of individuals and a violation of privacy (which may be concensual) is making it known to someone not in that specific group.
I would never ever disclose a recording I made to anyone except my wife (who knows everything I know) unless the entity I had a conversation with disclaimed (perhaps implicitly) knowledge of parts of the conversation. Even then I'd probably transcribe the recording (which, incidentally, is what my wife does without the need for an intermediate recording device, but then she has to do it on every telephone call regardless of what happens afterward.)
John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>
Felix:
I wish people read OP's post a little more carefully. The main feature request was to have "some sort of a VM system". Nothing about GV specifically (for JohnBowler, who brought in this canard - one can set up voicemail to answer before GV picks up, thereby making your comment irrelevant even for GV); and as secondary thought about conversation recording (obviously, done with accordance with your local laws, and with indemnity to OBi).
If people want to discuss legal ramifications of recording conversations, why not start a separate topic instead of hijacking this technical one?!
JohnBowler:
Quote from: Felix on July 03, 2012, 09:16:37 am
Nothing about GV specifically (for JohnBowler, who brought in this canard - one can set up voicemail to answer before GV picks up, thereby making your comment irrelevant even for GV);
I think you misunderstood what I said: I find GV VM pretty compelling, if GV could also do the voice recording then it would be totally compelling and the issue of doing VM on the 202 would be moot because GV would be so much better so far as I am concerned.
On reflection, however, I think that I confounded the VM issues with the recording issues; I use GV for *incoming* and voip.ms for *outgoing* and, consequently, the failure of GV to record outgoing calls is irrelevant.
So I think I have to revise what I originally said: I no longer think that having the 202 do VM would actually be useful for me. Rather I'd have the 202 do call recording (only) and leave the VM to GV because it handles all my incoming calls and having the VM in the cloud works really well. (Anyway, the translations are hilarious; my wife, myself and my mother were most amused by the misscription of one of her messages, a good five minutes of comedy.)
The main issue with doing extra things on the 202 is the performance of the device. I think it's a Marvell XScale (can anyone confirm this - I haven't looked inside the case yet?) The overall performance of the device is limited, the 202 already does quite a lot, but most of it (DNS, DHCP, even file serving) is not time critical, recording *is* time critical.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page