Google bans third-party call-recording apps from Play Store Google has made changes to its Play Store policies, effectively banning third-party call-recording apps beginning May 11, claiming it seeks to close alternative use accessibility APIs for things other than accessibility. Google has for a while blocked real call recording on Android 6 and over the microphone on Android 10. …
I don't. Are they saying that they want to stop us recording calls ( I haven't needed to yet, but could conceive of a time when I would*)? Or do they want to keep such an option to themselves for some strange reason?
IOW. What's this all about. Why can't I just record my calls with my choice of software if I so choose.
*Scam callers for example.
What's this all about. Why can't I just record my calls with my choice of software if I so choose.
The stated justification is that you shouldn't be able to do it without the other person in the call knowing about it. Not sure what business it is of Google. Maybe they're afraid of lawsuits.
Google is not afraid of lawsuits.
There is nothing illegal about recording phone conversations as we all know because everyone does it. Its shocking that you insurance agent can record your call but you can't.
I would like an app that detects when a call is being recorded and records it locally too.
In the UK all calls and faxes are recorded, unless they are via voip, and even then many are.
If they can record it why can't we.
"In the UK all calls and faxes are recorded, unless they are via voip, and even then many are."
Recorded where by who?
The call meta data is certainly logged by the carrier (be it POTS or VoIP) but unless you are a person of interest, covered by an Interception Warrant, I seriously doubt that the ordinary call content is recorded by the authorities. Calls to Emergency Services are of course recorded.
Your mileage may vary per state and/or nation... In the US, where google has a huge presence, rules about recording vary, many require that you not record a call without BOTH people knowing that the call is being recorded. Some require only a "beep" tone at the beginning of the call, others need something like, "this call is being recorded" put in at the beginning.
Law enforcement, of course, can ignore these rules if necessary.
"many require that you not record a call without BOTH people knowing that the call is being recorded."
There is always the don't ask/don't tell thing. If you are on a call and can't take notes, transcribing the information later from a recording can be very useful. If you didn't tell the other person the call was being recorded, it wouldn't be admissible in court, but your notes would be.
Google finds it extremely useful to be able to capture all the data it can for its files on everybody. While they might be prohibited from monitoring live calls, machine scanning recorded calls could be something they can get away with. The recording itself might not be used, but the information discussed might be. If you record a call and tell somebody your mother just passed away, Google probably knows who you mother is, her tax ID number, address, phone number, etc. Credit card companies and banks would love to have that information right away to lock those accounts down. If you tell a family member than you've been diagnosed with a terminal disease or been sacked from your job, those same credit cards companies, banks and credit agencies would love to know.
You know that when you get a recording that your call may be monitored for quality purposes, that recording will not be available if it would help you in a dispute with that company. Your call was one of the many that weren't monitored in those cases. Since companies aren't required to have a non-recorded customer service phone line(s), why shouldn't customers be able to do the same with software they choose?
I've been using ACR and following its struggles for a while. ACR can only record with microphone on my Cat S61 (Android 9) and it gets full call audio on my BB Priv (Android 6). Neither of the default "Phone" applications allow phone recording.
I suppose this just adds to the mounting pile of reasons for keeping the Priv forever.
Google is just being malicious with this.
I have had a call recording on, by default, for the last... I don't remember, since android 4 (samsung S2), and one of the reasons I have not moved past android 6 is that they blocked it, or tried hard to make it even more difficult. I have managed to capture all my calls to my parents (now both dead), and my conversations with at least one more person (a real personality with long life history) - he also died, recently. I wish I'd had that opportunity with my other relatives who died in 1990s... I do listen to some of those recorded calls, at random, from time to time. It helps a bit, gives a bit of a... perspective on things, plus it's a snapshot of reality, on top of faded photographs. As to google decision-makers... well, nothing nuanced: FUCK. YOU.
I really want a decent call recording app for my phone, but can never find one. Having all my calls recorded makes it so easy for me to review calls to remind myself of what was actually said.
Whenever I ring a business they include the 'calls recorded' warning, why can't I do the same?
And I can't stand the BS that Google come out with to justify taking this facility away. </rant>
That's totally legal, I have a gadget that plugs in to a domestic phone socket and has a jack out for recording. Just say you are doing it.
The old tape Answerphones used to have this feature it far from new tech or a privacy concern, two parties are talking, where is the privacy concern of either of those two parties records (or remembers or writes down or has on speaker) the call. If you want privacy both parties must arrange it. The default state for a call on mobile is that receiver is "mobile", I. É. A presumption of privacy is nuts, they are likely to be on a bus or train. There is no pretence that calls are secure. You wouldn't do private conversations in the pub. The only possible legal impact, is the truth is not available when it is required in court because one side is up before the beak.
As a foreigner, with the awful accent to prove it, I have numerous times had people say things to me, and then claim "I didn't say that, he's English, he didn't understand".
I recently got myself a new Mi10T (contact renewal) but I'm still using my old S9 as the mobile phone and the Mi10T for Netflix at home...because I have an app that automatically records calls on the S9. It seems such a thing may not be available for the 10T.
To me, this is non-negotiable, it is important that I have to option of being able to replay and relisten to things said on the phone (something I detest, but I digress). As for the legality of recording calls, that's my problem not yours. So, again, fuck you Google.
I've used quite a few call recording apps, but in practice you are far better off using a SIP connection and a provider where you can record in the network. Some providers, like Truphone, aimed at financial service where recording of calls is mandated, will let you do it over cellular.
...the message says when you phone up to complain. You think ah good, permission to record the call, thanks. With the fancy smartphone with gigabytes of storage that ought to be easy, heck, it should be on by default. It's not on by default and it's not easy. This means that others who you maybe in legal dispute with 'may' have recordings they can use if it suits them but you don't.
You also know that some AI is listening to what you're saying and may make recordings if you say trigger words or perhaps everything it simply recorded by default, why not, I'm sure the storage exists. Everything I've ever said on the phone would probably fit on a flash drive.
@Wayland In the UK, they are not asking permission to record the call as asking for permission is not required to record. What does require permission from all parties on the call is sharing that recording.
What they are asking for is limited permission (for training purposes only) to share that recording.
Whats the definition of "share" ?
putting it out on the torrent sites?
selling it to other companies ?
internal staff listening to it " for training"
surely if even one person replays the recoding , even in a dark room , its been shared?
(hmm , maybe excluding the original participants)
Now i think about it I'm not happy my conversation is being shared because the answers to all my security questions are on it!! :(
@Prst. V.Jeltz Actually I was wrong when it comes to businesses, since GDPR consent to call recording must actively be sought, following a clear explanation of why the call is being recorded.
But for individuals it is not a crime to record a conversation without telling the other parties.
As for sharing I don’t know what level of sharing and with who would be a criminal offence. Or for that matter what level of sharing would leave you open to a civil case.
It's much messier in AUS, but built-in call recording is clearly illegal.
The messy bit is that there is a whole bunch of hidden carve-outs that aren't mentioned in the telecommunications law.
For example, if you phone a police station, you are recorded. No message, not exemption shown in the telecommunications act, but the recording will be played in court.
Which is another messy carve out: in addition to the telecommunications act restriction on connected recording devices, there are a bunch of 'privacy' restrictions which are different in every state. The 'privacy' restrictions mean that you have to treat the data like private data, authorized and protected and not shared. Except when you got to court. Courts consider themselves above stuff like privacy laws, so that unauthorized recording which would be illegal in every other context, may be offered as evidence in court.
"What they are asking for is limited permission (for training purposes only) to share that recording."
In that case, they should be saying "We may record this call for training purposes". The way they phrase it, they are offering permission to anyone listening in or participating in the call to "record it for training purposes". I might want to use those recordings to train my AI and they just allowed me to do it.
I also want the ability to record my calls. When I used to I'd warn people I was doing this. Did that with Three once and the woman objected that it be used for anything other than reference, which she was allowed to do and which then barred me airing it on any public forum.
Did the same for a company that kept illegally cold calling people, stuck it on my YouTube channel as had warned him near the end I was recording. He kicked into "Don't admit anything mode" but I'd still already caught him talking bollocks, considering I'd given him a fake address.
Its very useful for reference but most of the time it can't be given as evidence in court. However, I assume it would also be very useful for people who get abusive messages.
Wouldn't surprise me if Google then release an app that can record calls in both directions.
I came here thinking I would find people saying "Good, I don't want third-party apps having the ability to record ....after all, they might do it without me knowing"
And the point that they are misusing an API to do so makes that seem more likely.
But everyone here wants them to do it. Who knew?
An app that sneakily records your calls is one problem, but if any app asks you to enable an accessibility service, a four-step process with security warnings, and you don't know why, you should already be worried about it. An app that has that as its purpose is a tool that people understand and may want to use.
Precisely. As I noted, I don't currently record any calls. And wouldn't grant any software permission to do so on a routine basis. But if one day I really feel the need to do so it's no business of Google's. And it's easy to think of reasons why this might be a legitimate activity. e.g. WFH and are given an instruction that may be in breach of some legal requirement, or unethical or risky in some other way but that the bosses could deny. Or after being contacted by a scammer, or being given a reassurance that some ( perhaps legally binding )agreement or process is being started or terminated, but without any written confirmation. ("Don't worry Mr. Customer, we'll have your electricity bill for £40000 corrected to £400 immediately and you don't need to worry about the bailiffs" - The sort of story, in fact, that pops up on Watchdog from time to time).
Actually I use my landline for those sorts of calls, so I could just use the mobile phone's voice recorder to record that. But there are plenty of people who don't have a landline. And some here on El Reg who actively look down on them.
>And the point that they are misusing an API
This is not a misuse of an API !
It is only Google who have decided that a certain set of APIs can only be used for a specific purpose.
Google are being very daft in wanting to limit the use of a set of API's to just the specific use-case they can think of.
However, it is relatively easy to justify call recording as being a service to the hard of hearing or when one or other party on the call is not a native speaker.
With voice telephone based customer services being much the only way to get in touch with many companies. call recording can be a very useful method of making a record of these interactions - useful should a dispute arise.
One could also see call recording being useful to someone receiving haarassing/threatening calls.
For normal calls, if you are very indiscreet when speaking with a casual 3rd party you perhaps ought to think about your own actions. If friends record personal conversations then perhaps that friendship needs some re-evaluation.
I think most on here have few objections if apps state what they do, do only what they say, and are controllable by the user. Taking issue arises where apps do things sneakily, or omit significant details from their description [e.g. we will store your data on our servers and may use it for any other purpose], or are difficult to control [e.g. turn off _completely_ when desired].
One reason that I've moved as much of my life as possible (email etc) away from Google is specifically to escape nonsense like this.
It's my phone, my phone call, my monthly phone bill, and it is absolutely my choice to record my own phone calls.
When did Google, Apple, and Meta gain so much control over my life?
"What next, email and chat apps not allowed to retain any history? Will messages and emails vapourise in front of your eyes?"
No. They will be required to be stored on a government approved service provider. Google and Amazon will write the qualifications for gaining approval so there may only be two approved places you can save your communications. In some countries there will be a child safety angle and in more authoritarian countries it will be due to the need for national security.
That's not a hard thing to do. You would then want an app to retrieve the recording from the BT headset. I think you'd have bandwidth issues if you used BT to transmit the data back to the phone in real time.
I've wanted a good excuse to get a trucker's headset for a while now. I'll have to look for one that's good for hacking into to add the functionality.
You are most likely right about capacity restrictions on Bluetooth protocol if trying to send the combined audio channel (mono microphone + mono audio) back to the phone. Until the most recent revision of Bluetooth, running stereo audio + mono microphone required some 'tricks', as the headset profile is mono audio. Gaming headsets that offer stereo sound and microphone use proprietary protocols, or the aforesaid 'tricks'.
But I was thinking more of the headset writing to an SD/TF-card, or having a line-out to an different recording device.
I find it irritating that Google are not simply giving the end user control with app permissions, so that in general apps don't get access to monitor the microphone input channel or audio output channels - the Linux (Android) sound architectures Pulseaudio or Pipewire certainly could do this, and I would not be surprised if JACK or ALSA can. Then only the user-chosen recording app could be given permission to monitor the relevant audio streams/channels. You bought the phone, so you should have the control over what particular apps are, or are not allowed to do.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
