Can Your Words Be Used Against You? Yes, they most certainly can. Here's what the RICA Act has to say about recordings.
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
You're reading Entrepreneur South Africa, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.
"This call may be recorded for quality control and records purposes…" Anyone who has been on hold with insurance companies would be familiar with these words — but what are the implications of a recorded conversation and when is it legal?
In essence, the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act of 2002 (mercifully shortened to "RICA') permits any person, who is a party to a conversation to record that conversation, provided that it is direct communication — which is defined as oral communication between two or more persons that occurs in the immediate presence of those persons.
Section 4 of the RICA Act governs this aspect of our monitoring law. What is unclear, however, is the degree to which this extends to legal persons, such as a company that monitors a call centre agent's performance, for example.
Evidence in legal cases
While limited to direct communications and not covered by third party interception, such as an eavesdropper, the lesson here remains pretty stark — you could legally be recorded during any conversation you have.
The implications of this are significant — just ask former Springbok player Luke Watson, who had a conversation recorded during a function in 2008 that was subsequently leaked to the media.
Furthermore, with the widespread use of smartphones, together with applications freely available on the relevant app stores, designed to record cellphone calls, the likelihood of you being recorded — whether you know it or not, is ever increasing.
Beyond the moral or ethical ambiguity of this, the legal ramifications of what is recorded are more certain — the recording may be used against you as evidence in any criminal proceedings, or equally as possible, in civil proceedings where, for example, agreement to a contract or term thereof is in question, or in the insurance company's case, whether or not to repudiate a claim based on the information you provide to them.
Section 6 of the RICA Act contains a course of business exception that allows the interception of indirect communication:
- By means of which a transaction is entered into in the ordinary course of business
- Which relates to that business
- Which otherwise takes place in the course of that business.
While there has not, to my knowledge, been a reported case that deals with this aspect of the RICA Act, the implications regarding the use of this information to evidence the valid conclusion of a contract or as to the intentions of the parties to a contract are significant, particularly given that the scope is relatively broad, although limited.
The matter has, however, come before the Constitutional Court in the 1999 criminal case of S v Kidson, where the court held, per Justice Cameron, that unless a "reasonable expectation of privacy exists" it would be difficult to prevent the recording or interception falling within the ambit of the RICA Act.
Where to from here?
From both a commercial and criminal perspective, this should serve to remind us all of our wise grandmother's words — if you have nothing nice to say, rather say nothing at all (especially because you never know whether you are being recorded).
