One of the most heard questions in the world of Law School es «Can I record a conversation without consent of the other participants? and the answer to this question so sought after is: Yes of course. But you can go a little further still, can these recordings be used without consent of the person to which it is recorded? Well, yes and no, that is, they can be used as long as their use be it to defend a interest personal or whether it is a noticia important and of interest publicIt happens many times that in an interview labor certain economic or other conditions are offered, and then after accepting the offer de work and sign the contract These promises are never realized. In the /// If you have recorded that interview in which the working conditions that will be had and that have not been fulfilled are explained, you can go to court to ask that they are fulfilled. Likewise in any other /// in which the content of a conversation is intended to be recorded, for whatever reason.
The legal explanation that corresponds to this is the one established by the doctrine of the Court Constitutional in its sentences 114/1984 which speaks about the right al secret in communications. The sentences says the following: «Whoever delivery to another the letter received or who uses a voice amplification device during their telephone conversation voice which allows other people present to capture that conversation is not violating the secret of communications, without damage that these same behaviors, in the /// that what is thus transmitted to others enters the "intimate" sphere of the interlocutor, could constitute attacks on the right guaranteed in the article 18.1 of the ConstitutionThe same can be said at present ///, regarding the recording by one of the interlocutors of the telephone conversation. This act does not violate secret alguno impuesto by art. 18.3 and could only, perhaps, be conceived as preparatory conduct for the subsequent dissemination of the recording. As regards this last dimension of the behaviour considered, it is also clear that the contravention constitutional could only be understood as materialized by the done same as the dissemination (art. 18.1 of the Constitution). Anyone who records another's conversation is attentive, regardless of any other consideration, to right recognized in art. 18.3 of the Constitution; on the contrary, whoever records a conversation with another does not incur, for this reason alone done, in conduct contrary to the precept constitutional cited. If a generic were imposed must de secret to each of the interlocutors or co-responsible parties under art. 18.3, it would end up being emptied of meaning, in good faith part of its regulatory scope, to the protection of the personal intimate sphere ex art. 18.1, Warranty This one, "a contrario", does not universalize the must de secret, allowing it to be recognized only by object to preserve such privacy (material dimension of the secret, as it was said). The practical results that could be carry such indiscriminate imposition of a legal obligation de silence to the interlocutor are, as is understandable, completely unreasonable and contradictory, final, with the same possibility of the processes of spirit human communication.»
All this, which seems so cumbersome and tedious to understand, means that the mere done to record a conversation between the person that records and another or other persons do not violate any right of these people even if they do not know that they are being recorded or object to it.
It is not the same to record conversations of third parties without their consent. authorization, which does threaten the right al secret of the communications of those people. But in the /// That the person that the person recording is participating in the conversation being recorded is not considered illegal, since the people who are talking to this person they do it crafts spirit and therefore it is assumed that what they say no longer belongs to their privacy, but that they are sharing it with the other person de crafts spirit. Other thing different is the use that it be granted to that recording, which as has already been saying may not be made public except for purposes intended to safeguard a right own of the person who publishes it, such as experiment in a trial. But of course it cannot be uploaded to social networks or published in the media or any other crafts, as long as it is not a question of acts of relevance and interest public.
En conclusion, when talking about recording a conversation held between several people, it must be stated that any of them can record the conversation without permission from others, but you will not be able to use it without permission of these people, except on very rare occasions and whenever the carefully that is caused by using it is Most that damage that is caused to other people by using that recording. These cases are usually evidence in trials or public complaints of acts relevant as the programs of research de camera hidden.
En Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic we have the team of lawyers more complete and effective to advise you on issues of Procedure Civil law y Law School Common Equipment. To who Carlos Felipe Law Firm SRL. We evaluate your /// free of charge and without commitment Call us at 829 256 6865 or write to us at info@fc-abogados.com, You can also chat with us here if you wish.
