SCC Associates

This phone number 844 291 6330 just called my mother's landlord and gave him my name and a case number and said he was going to come pick me up and take me to jail for hot checks. I haven't wrote any checks in years. and those accounts are closed. david meyers said he was going to serve me papers at my job and home. Now why would he tell my mother's landlord all of this information. i don't even have my mother's landlord phone number. I don't have a clue as to how the "process server" got it. This should be a violation of privacy for david meyers to be calling a person i barely see or know with my personal information.

Chun Lee - Did you take a rapid English class ? Because between your first post in broken, stereotype Chinese English to this post in almost perfect English for a troll, the improvement is astounding ....

SSC Associates of 8397 Lakeshore Rd, Angola, NY 14006 is rated "F" by the BBB.   In fact, per BBB,  mail sent to SCC is undeliverable and is reported as "returned mail."
http://www.bbb.org/upstate-new-york/Business- ... la-ny-235969246

A reason why it is undeliverable can be seen on Google maps after entering the reported SCC address: It appears to be in a wooded area near a bridge and a place called "Bennett Park," in a heavily wooded area.    Apparently the folks at SCC are bridge trolls.

https://maps.google.com/

As I understand it he's in the clear as long as he lets the other party know they're being recorded. I've lived in 2 states that are "two-party" states (or "all-party" in the case of conference calls, I suppose). Whenever I called a business that recorded calls (for "training" or "quality assurance" is the usual claim) I was simply informed that the call was being recorded – never asked if I agreed to the recording.

If anyone has any more information on this subject I'd be glad to hear it. (I've found that simply *telling* scammers that the call is being recorded – even though it's not – is usually sufficient to put the fear of The Law into them and get them to Run Away with their tail between their legs.)

} This should be a violation of privacy

Federal law is ahead of you by 35 years. See FDCPA §1692c(b), "communication with third parties":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692c

But let's not bury the lead on what makes the scripted shakedown from Shadowcreek illegal. See FDCPA §1692e(2)(A), e(4), e(5), e(7), and e(10):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692e

I notice you haven't posted your story to the correct number thread, which currently has only one unhelpful "got call" post. It would help others with a similar problem if you amplify your experience and identify the caller ... the input which mainly drives this website.

https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-844-291-6330

prior discussion of telephone recording legal issues:
https://800notes.com/forum/ta-8d7dd66f17b0340/some-interesting-info
https://800notes.com/forum/ta-3cc0be064ac04b8 ... 111658979654617
(My remark oddly enough cites a different Shadowcreek thread.)

Thanks, Res. I'm familiar with those threads and links, but they don't really clarify what I'm wondering about. Everything I've read in them talks about one or both parties needing to give "consent" to recording. But every time I call Comcast, for example, I'm told "this conversation may be recorded for training or quality control"; I'm never asked if I *consent*. I can't believe a big, legally-aware corporation like Comcast (or Verizon or Sprint or on and on...) isn't being very careful to follow the law in this regard when there are so many people out there who would happily sue them for just about anything. Yet, there's a big difference between being *aware* that you're being recorded and giving *consent* to being recorded.

Or is there? Here's my educated (one law course during grad school!) guess as to what's going on: When you're told that the call is being recorded (or "may be" recorded, in their euphemism) you have the opportunity to hang up if it's not acceptable. So by staying on the line after being informed you are giving implied consent.

But I use the word "guess" deliberately. I don't know for certain. I'm not a lawyer. And as far as I can tell the authors of the links you gave aren't lawyers either (the RCFP article was written by a "legal fellows" Kristen Rasmussen and Jack Komperda and "legal intern" Raymond Baldino). Either way, they don't clarify the difference (if any) between "inform of" and "get consent for".

I'm going to assume that the businesses that simply inform me of recording are doing things legally and I'll work the same way: I'll tell every party, no matter what state they're in, they're being recorded. Court decisions seem have given great weight to whether the recording was done with "nefarious intent", in which case we, the public, are on much safer ground than the crooks making the calls.

Whether consent to record must be expressed or may be implied is a good question. As with the overall issue, I've yet to find a good answer from docketed cases or consumer litigants. It may be that the trial lawyers who could best opine are too risk-averse to go "on record". (They don't do their own homework anyway; that's what paralegals are for.) What floats or sinks in front of a judge can be quite relative and unpredictable, moreso when a legal issue lacks solid arrows and lines in Sharpie pointing us to a best decision. The RCFP material alone provides numerous examples of case battles which are possibly instructive but hopelessly less than definitive.

My impression has been, as in your speculation, that the lack of objection to a recording disclosure or a "quality assurance" disclaimer can play out the same as implied consent. This same principle is seen all over the place: If you don't respond to a dunning letter, the debt collector can proceed as if its claims are valid. If you don't answer a summons, everything in a civil complaint can be read as true. If you're served discovery and don't fight what the opponent wants you to admit to, the opponent wins again.

My own study, as touched on in one of those past comments, has led me to seek an "expectation of privacy" position when consent is less sure ground. The "quality assurance" disclaimer doesn't say you *will* be recorded, only that you might, yet in neither case can you expect total privacy. A manager might be eavesdropping, or a recording might be stowed away. Maybe the recording will never be accessed, maybe it'll be bonked over your head one day. It's safer to assume the worst.

If privacy is not expected by one party, it cannot be expected by the others, goes the argument I've often read, and it's one I agree with. When I hear "quality assurance" from an "all-party" state source, I in my single party state will quietly roll tape and not give a fudge what the other end thinks later.

I'd also agree that the intended use of a recording is a key weapon when corporate defenders whine in protest on the basis of frankly outdated wiretap laws. It's not as if I've climbed a power pole and tapped a telco trunk to capture the words of strangers, hoping to manipulate call content and commit blackmail. When speaking to debt collectors I am part of a conversation in which someone may try to abuse me and deny my rights. My recording is strictly to help defend my rights and possibly expose the bad behavior which certain collectors revert to when relaxed in their natural habitat. That's the idea driving both that beautiful appeals court ruling and also suggestions from the CFPB and NCLC to write a new law which makes evidence phone recording perfectly legal in every state.