Which is an exception to the general prohibitions on telephone monitoring that exist under the U.S. Wiretap Act?
Which is an exception to the general prohibitions on telephone monitoring that exist under the U.S. Wiretap Act?
The ordinary course of business exception is well-recognized under the U.S. Wiretap Act, allowing employers to monitor telephone calls as long as it is done in the routine performance of their business activities. This exception is specifically designed to permit businesses to ensure that their operations are conducted smoothly and efficiently while preventing misuse of company resources.
TWO EXCEPTIONS to the prohibition on interception often apply in the workplace. Under federal law, interception is permitted: 1. If a person is a party to a call or where one of the parties has given consent 2. The interception is done in the ordinary course of business An employer who provides communication services, such as a company telephone or email service, has the ability to intercept provided the interception occurs in the normal course of the user’s business. An important distinction exists when an employer listens to an employee’s purely personal call. In this instance, the employer risks violation of the wiretap laws. As courts have split on how broadly to define the “ordinary course of business,” many employers rely on the consent exception for interception of telephone calls. Privacy professionals should be alert to the requirements of relevant state laws on recording phone calls, because some of these laws require ONE-PARTY CONSENT, while others mandate that ALL PARTIES TO THE CALL CONSENT.