2007/03/02

To Record Is Corporate - Banking/Finance Edition

Back in September, Blognonymous tried a little experiment to determine how Telco's respond to customers who refuse to be recorded or who attempt to record service calls themselves. What we discovered was very illuminating. The policies are all over the map frankly and are sometimes illegal, since many states like California require both parties consent to a recorded phone call.

Well, here we are back again with a tiny table of paranoia covering the banking/finance industry. Sorry it's so small, but I've only got so many banking relationships -
    InstitutionRecords Customer
    Calls
    Shutoff on
    Request
    Allows Customer
    To Record
    Wells FargoYesYes (very difficult)Yes
    TD AmeritradeYesNoYes
    Washington
    Mutual
    YesNoYes
    ETradeYesNoNo

8 Comments:

I've been very intrigued by Libertarianism for a while now, and browse the Cato Institute's site from time to time. That's why this article Privacy As Censorship was so disappointing:

Some privacy advocates urge the adoption of a new legal regime for the transfer of information about consumers among private-sector databases. This "mandatory opt-in" regime would require private businesses to ask for a consumer's permission before trading information about that consumer, such as his buying habits or hobbies, to third parties. This would, in effect, create new privacy rights.

These new rights would conflict with our tradition of free speech. From light conversation, to journalism, to consumer credit reporting, we rely on being able to freely communicate details of one another's lives. Proposals to forbid businesses to communicate with one another about real events fly in the face of that tradition.

New restrictions on speech about consumers could disproportionately hurt small businesses, new businesses, and nonprofits. Older, larger companies have less need for lists of potential customers, as they have already established a customer base.


There is no way in hell some Corporation should have more rights than an individual.
Very interesting.
Fred... In fact the 10th amendment guarantees all non-enumerated rights to the states or to individuals. Corporations are not mentioned, and I've argued that corporations have no rights...whatsoever.

I guess the thing that hacks me off is a corporation's attempt to reserve a legal procedure solely for its own benefit.

Tom... it is, isn't it? I was surprised though that financial institutions are more amenable to your recording them than the telcos are. The telcos are downright paranoid.
Uh-huh. And you TRUST them to 'shutoff on request'???
Mr_Blog...well I suppose they could just tell you that they're doing it, but California law requires that both parties consent to the recording. When you withhold your consent most companies just terminate the call.

Though, it's not like you're going to sue 'em.
Couldn't agree more about the rights of corporations. In 1886 the Supreme Court essentially gave corporations the same rights as people, for god's sakes. I count that as one of the worst mistakes in American history, given the effect it's had on democracy.
Don't get me started on Washington Mutual and their loan-sharking take-over policies. . .definately bottom-feeders.
I count that as one of the worst mistakes in American history, given the effect it's had on democracy.

Aba... In fact, one wonders the Court just decided to give up on the whole "Constitution" thing?

John... My few experiences with WaMu have been OK. Better than Wells Fargo service wise, but their people seemed a it slow. When I asked them to shutoff the recording, I had a hard time trying to get them to take me seriously. And then, they just couldn't seem to grok the idea.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link