Interception Policy

The Jack Cola (John Colaiacovo) Organization is a company based out the state of New York.  This organization deals with both inbound and outbound call centers within the state. These call centers function both internally and externally in the state of New York. Beneath this statement are the State, Federal, and cellular guidelines that the Jack Cola (John Colaiacovo) Organization strictly adheres to. If you place or receive a call from this company, you are waiving your right to privacy of the intercepted telephone operation and/or transmission. This applies to any and all numbers directed to a New York telephone number, which are all recorded.

The following are the laws and guidelines within the state of New York, which we strictly abide by:
Intercepting or unlawfully being involved in wiretapping without the permission of the party being unlawfully acted against is considered a felony. This is considered a felony under the New York Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05. Mechanical wiretapping is considered illegal in the state of New York only when the party that has been wiretapped is not involved in the telephone conversation, which is ruled under People v.Gibson, 23 N.Y.2d 618 (N.Y. 1969). This means that only parties from not directly involved in the conversation are unauthorized to wiretap or interfere with the phone call.Those who are directly involved in the conversation can record the conversation at hand because they have answered the call, and therefore implicitly given consent to the other party. In addition to all of this, those who speak in the presence of a non-participatory third party should not expect full privacy in regards to the overheard statements. This is legally sanctioned under the case of People v. Kirsh, 176 A.D.2d. 652 (N.Y. App. Div.1991).

The laws specified above apply to conversations conducted both over mobile lines and landlines, specified in the case of People v Fata, 159 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y.App. Div.1990).Newspapers that distribute or publicize records of an illegally recorded phone call or phone conversation are subject to civil accountability according to a state court hearing.

This hearing said that the “newspapers knew they were dealing with recorded conversations between un-consenting parties,” according to Natoli v. Sullivan, 606N.Y.S.2d 504 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oswego County 1993), aff’d, 616 N.Y.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App.Div. 1994).

Publications are susceptible to similar laws. A specific law that publications are vulnerable to claims that “tampering with private communications,” is considered crime.

This crime is generally considered a misdemeanor instead of a severe felony under the N.Y. Penal Law § 250.25. A person is guilty of such a crime when he or she reveals the contents of some form of private, written communication that has knowingly been opened or read. This is also found under the N.Y. Penal Law § 250.25.For more information in regards to the recording of telephone calls or other interception policy questions, please contact us.