Call Recording

[Ian]

Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 18:48:34 +0000, Ian wrote:

> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update

Thank you for letting us know.

I'm on Android 7, Nougat, so I'm unaware of this.

And, I can't even _find_ a Windows-based Android 9 emulator that works on
my older AMD-based Windows 10 desktop. (sigh).

I would try the open-source apps, since they may be "outside" Google's
direct influence perhaps (maybe not, as many are on Fdroid & GooglePlay).

Did you try this open-source app by Alexey Kuznetsov?
o Call Recorder version 1.6.36 (that's my version)
o <https://gitlab.com/axet/android-call-recorder>
o <https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.github.axet.callrecorder/>

I didn't find _that_ app on Google Play (did I miss it?).

There is another (same? different?) app on F-Droid:
o <https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/com.callrecorder.android>

NOTE: I used to use this app before they became obnoxious:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorder>

Please let us know if the Alexey Kuznetsov call recorder works,
as it may be an open-source app _outside_ the clutches of Google???

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 21:12:28 -0000 (UTC), Boris wrote:

> I once asked here for Android emulators that worked on desktops, but no
> one knew of any. Where do you get yours?

Hi Boris,
I wrote a half dozen (or so) tutorials, one for each Android emulator.
o I wrote them, oh, about a month or two ago.

So they should be easy to find in the archives.
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
http://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com

I write these tutorials (each of which takes about a day to write)
expressly so that _others_ may benefit from my step-by-step tutorials.

I searched for and tested _EVERY_ single free Android emulator.
o Every single one (that I could find) that ran on Windows.

Here is a link to some of those tutorials, each of which I tested
every single line that I post (on Windows 10, AMD CPU).
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/aW64zYeBtF0/c7TrEvhIAQAJ>

Personally, here's my recommendation, given that I'm on a super-old desktop
which happens to be AMD-based, which is a problem with some emulators,
where speed & compatibility are an issue you won't have with new'ish
machines, nor with Intel-based machines.

1. If you want to play games, then use Bluestacks emulation.
o <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/JBRjZ39w4Ok>

2. If you want to run code, then use Genymotion emulation.
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ix9empN-mxg/07ZmH2AWAQAJ>

Please note, I am NOT an Android expert, nor a Windows expert, nor a coding
expert, nor an emulation expert, etc. I just test things reasonably well.

Hence, I would LOVE to LEARN from YOU, if/when you test out those
tutorials!

Please let me know what works for you and what doesn't work.
We _all_ benefit from a purposefully helpful adult dialog.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 26.01.19 um 19:48 schrieb Ian:

> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update

They are simply illegal.

[VanguardLH]

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> Ian:
>
>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
>
> They are simply illegal.

Not true. If the callee identifies to the caller that the call is being
recorded and the caller agrees then there is illegality. If the call
has a repeated beep to identify the call is being recorded then that is
not an illegal recording. Providers still offer the service to record
incoming calls. The choice by Google is their own choice and not based
on the legality of recording calls.

The OP never mentioned from which country the calls originated. So
neither you or I can address is recording the call is illegal on a
global basis. We can only speak regarding what is allowed in our own
country. The callee is only responsible to comply with the laws of his
locality, state, or country, not with those of the caller.

Google has many times giveth and then taketh away. Some apps used to
monitor for spam calls and they could also monitor for spam texts. That
was up to Android 4.4.3 which thereafter the anti-spam apps could only
see the source of the call and no longer could see the source of a text,
yet lots of those anti-spam apps still declare then can block spam
texts.

That apps can no longer record incoming calls has nothing to do with
legality. It all has to do with Google deciding to remove some or all
of an API that the apps used to record the calls (instead of the apps
using their own code which may require rooting the phone).

https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/media/mediarecorder

RECORD_AUDIO is considered a "dangerous" permission because it may
pose a risk to the user's privacy.

As of Android 6, users got prompted when an app wanted access to a
dangerous permission, and at some point Google decided to prompt the
user on all of what permissions an app can have. This didn't meant
users were instantly and magically educated about the permissions but
they were told an app wanted one, or more. An app, for example, could
run in the background and record all your calls, not just the calls you
chose to record, and even send the recordings to somewhere.

Google did NOT disable the ability of apps to record a call in Android 9
Pie. What they did was change the API so *background* apps could no
longer keep recording the incoming calls. The user now has to take
overt action to record a call and that meant the app must be
foregrounded.

(from the above article)
Note: On devices running Android 9 (API level 28) or higher, apps
running in the background cannot access the microphone. Therefore,
your app should record audio only when it's in the foreground or when
you include an instance of MediaRecorder in a foreground service.

That means your recording app must be foregrounded for it to record the
call, not hiding as either a backgrounded app or running as a service.
The recording app must now change from a hidden and automatic recording
app to itself being a dialer that you use to make the outgoing call or
as a substitute "phone" app that appears for you to accept an incoming
call. There might be other means of getting the app to appear and in
the foreground when a new call comes in but the obvious one is to use a
Phone app to take the incoming calls and which adds a recording option.

Recording apps that only record are going to get killed. Those single-
purpose backgrounded apps that only record a call won't work, anymore.
However, as a phone app that has you decided to take the call and is
foregrounded then those can still record your calls. Or you root your
phone to get around the limitation.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 27.01.19 um 08:31 schrieb VanguardLH:

> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Ian:
>>
>>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
>>
>> They are simply illegal.
>
> Not true. If the callee identifies to the caller that the call is being
> recorded and the caller agrees then there is illegality.

This is certainly not illegal.

> has a repeated beep to identify the call is being recorded then that is
> not an illegal recording.

This is illegal. The consent of the callee is necessary.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 27.01.19 um 08:31 schrieb VanguardLH:

> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Ian:
>>
>>> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
>>> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
>>
>> They are simply illegal.

> The choice by Google is their own choice and not based
> on the legality of recording calls.

That will kill them and I'll help to kill them. What is legal or illegal
is determined by Parliaments and not companies.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 27/01/2019 08.31, VanguardLH wrote:

...

Re legality. Here sometimes companies call us and say they are going to
record the call for legal reasons, for contracting some service, say. If
they are recording, so we can.

> That apps can no longer record incoming calls has nothing to do with
> legality. It all has to do with Google deciding to remove some or all
> of an API that the apps used to record the calls (instead of the apps
> using their own code which may require rooting the phone).
>
> https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/media/mediarecorder
>
> RECORD_AUDIO is considered a "dangerous" permission because it may
> pose a risk to the user's privacy.
>
> As of Android 6, users got prompted when an app wanted access to a
> dangerous permission, and at some point Google decided to prompt the
> user on all of what permissions an app can have. This didn't meant
> users were instantly and magically educated about the permissions but
> they were told an app wanted one, or more. An app, for example, could
> run in the background and record all your calls, not just the calls you
> chose to record, and even send the recordings to somewhere.
>
> Google did NOT disable the ability of apps to record a call in Android 9
> Pie. What they did was change the API so *background* apps could no
> longer keep recording the incoming calls. The user now has to take
> overt action to record a call and that meant the app must be
> foregrounded.

Ah?

>
> (from the above article)
> Note: On devices running Android 9 (API level 28) or higher, apps
> running in the background cannot access the microphone. Therefore,
> your app should record audio only when it's in the foreground or when
> you include an instance of MediaRecorder in a foreground service.

What about the microphone apps, to record a speech, say?
Here some people use it, covertly, to record what the boss says and have
proof (example).

> That means your recording app must be foregrounded for it to record the
> call, not hiding as either a backgrounded app or running as a service.
> The recording app must now change from a hidden and automatic recording
> app to itself being a dialer that you use to make the outgoing call or
> as a substitute "phone" app that appears for you to accept an incoming
> call. There might be other means of getting the app to appear and in
> the foreground when a new call comes in but the obvious one is to use a
> Phone app to take the incoming calls and which adds a recording option.

Looks good to me.

> Recording apps that only record are going to get killed. Those single-
> purpose backgrounded apps that only record a call won't work, anymore.
> However, as a phone app that has you decided to take the call and is
> foregrounded then those can still record your calls. Or you root your
> phone to get around the limitation.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Chris in Makati]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:13:52 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:

Here we go again, people arguing legalities when there are countless
jurisdictions involved, all with different laws.

If you want to claim something is legal or illegal please state which
country/countries you're referring to.

[123456789]

Chris in Makati <ma...@nospam.com> Wrote in message:

> If you want to claim something is legal or illegal please state which
> country/countries you're referring to.

In my jurisdiction (US/AZ) it is legal to record a call with only
ONE party's knowledge. One of the often used investigation
tactics (tricks?) used by local police is to have the VICTIM call
an unsuspecting suspect and get a recorded crime admission which
can be later used in court. For example a molesting victim
reports a years old crime to the cops. They have her call the
perp and he often begs her not to call the cops for what he's
done. (Reading a person his rights only applies if he is in
custody.) Without that ability it would have been a he said/she
said situation with sucessful prosecution unlikely. However phone
tapping (where neither party is aware of the recording) still
requires a court order here.

[John McGaw]

Call recording is not, on the face of it, illegal. Recording _may_ be
illegal depending on where it is being done and the locations of the
parties and whether notifications are required/given and whether beep tones
are overlaid but mere recording is not _universally_ illegal. Some
jurisdictions are paranoid about it and virtually outlaw it under all
circumstances while others just don't care or have never gotten around to
even thinking about it.

[s|b]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 07:29:14 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> They are simply illegal.

Maybe in your country, but what about elsewhere?

--
s|b

[s|b]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 17:49:24 +0100, s|b wrote:

> > They are simply illegal.

> Maybe in your country, but what about elsewhere?

I just checked and in Belgium it is _legal_. You have to be a
participant of the conversion and permission is needed from only one
person (yourself included).

Whether the recording can be used in court as evidence is another story.

--
s|b

[nospam]

In article <1cpvz6tq...@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> >> Probably already well known by such a techy group but Android 9 disables
> >> all call recording apps. Bastards. Luckily I didn't update
> >
> > They are simply illegal.
>
> Not true. If the callee identifies to the caller that the call is being
> recorded and the caller agrees then there is illegality.

you mean legality. if both parties consent to being recorded, it's
*legal*. in some places, only one party needs to consent.

> If the call
> has a repeated beep to identify the call is being recorded then that is
> not an illegal recording. Providers still offer the service to record
> incoming calls. The choice by Google is their own choice and not based
> on the legality of recording calls.

yes it very definitely is.

they have no way to guarantee that all parties involved have consented,
or if they're even where they appear to be which being a mobile device,
can change.

> The OP never mentioned from which country the calls originated. So
> neither you or I can address is recording the call is illegal on a
> global basis. We can only speak regarding what is allowed in our own
> country. The callee is only responsible to comply with the laws of his
> locality, state, or country, not with those of the caller.

nope. if a callee is in a one-party consent state and calls someone in
a two-party consent state, the latter applies and both parties must
consent.

> Google has many times giveth and then taketh away. Some apps used to
> monitor for spam calls and they could also monitor for spam texts. That
> was up to Android 4.4.3 which thereafter the anti-spam apps could only
> see the source of the call and no longer could see the source of a text,
> yet lots of those anti-spam apps still declare then can block spam
> texts.

no need to record a call to do that.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 27.01.19 um 17:49 schrieb s|b:

> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 07:29:14 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> They are simply illegal.
>
> Maybe in your country, but what about elsewhere?
>

I do not commit crimes elsewhere so I don't care.
*SCNR*

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 27.01.19 um 17:58 schrieb s|b:

This is not correct for the whole of the EU. Without court order ist
cannot be used as evidence.

I can sue anybody tapping my phone without consent. Guess why all
companies in the EU and the rest of Europe need written consent from
their work force if they want to or have to to record phone calls for
regulatory reasons. Otherwise it would be severe breach of personal privacy.

[s|b]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:39:58 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> This is not correct for the whole of the EU. Without court order ist
> cannot be used as evidence.

Based on this site:

<https://www.elfri.be/rechtspraak/gesprek-opnemen-als-bewijs-en-niet-als-chantagemiddel-toegelaten>

in Belgium, it can. The link states: 'recording a (phone) conversation
as evidence and not as a mean to blackmail, is allowed'.

> I can sue anybody tapping my phone without consent.

AFAIK 'tapping' is something else. It's recording phone conversation by
a person that is not taking part in the conversation.

> Guess why all
> companies in the EU and the rest of Europe need written consent from
> their work force if they want to or have to to record phone calls for
> regulatory reasons.

Because the recording is done by a third party, one that is not part of
the conversation.

> Otherwise it would be severe breach of personal privacy.

I wouldn't know about that. You talk about a breach in personal privacy,
but the article says the conversation can be recorded because it is part
of the (recording) person's privacy as well.

I have no idea how this law holds up when the other party is living in
another country.

--
s|b

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:32:09 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> I do not commit crimes elsewhere so I don't care.

In other words, you just admitted you own the mind of a child, Joerg Lorenz.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:04:26 +0000, Chris in Makati wrote:

> If you want to claim something is legal or illegal please state which
> country/countries you're referring to.

And, even in, oh, say, "two party states", there _still_ are exceptions,
e.g., for situations of abuse.

Since Joerg Lorenz' comments are patently ridiculous, only one or more of
the following situations _can_ possibly apply (IMHO):
o Either Joerg Lorenze is really that unfathomably stupid, or,
o Joerg Lorenz is simply pulling our leg, or,
o Joerg Lorenz actually _believes_ he comprehends the situation accurately.

One or more _must_ apply.
o All of which tell us that nothing Joerg Lorenz says is that of an adult.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:13:52 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> This is illegal. The consent of the callee is necessary.

It's the same as if Joerg Lorenz claimed the moon is made out of cheese.
o No amount of actual fact will sway Joerg Lorenz from imaginary beliefs

To be fair, it' a waste of time for any adult to attempt an intelligent
conversation with Joerg Lorenz.
o He's convinced the lemon juice worked despite all evidence otherwise.

*Joerg Lorenz is a _perfect_ example of left side Dunning-Kruger brains.*

Why they consistently and incessantly prove that point, is amazing.
o Essentially, their mind is wired as a "left side of mount stupid" DK mind
o They own confidence - but not comprehension.
<https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*t2sx5h0UF-kljgC2sj2msw.jpeg>

The reason they have _never_ once added value to any thread, is simple:
o They are not just stupid... they _remain_ ignorant their entire lives.
o They revel as that of a child... which is why they chitchat well together
o They can't comprehend fact... yet, they _think_ they do! <== dangerous!
<https://understandinginnovation.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/dunning-kruger-0011.jpg>

In essence, they own the epitome of the lemon-juice bank robber's mind.
<https://scanfoam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/adpativeDKblog3.jpg>

These are the well known compatriots of the lemon-juice robber mindset:
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r...@WizardsTower.invalid>
o Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> (sometimes, rarely, he posts as an adult)
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Diesel <m...@privacy.net> (aka Dustin Cook)
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid> (rarely, but sometimes posts as an adult)
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o John Doe <alway...@message.header>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Ken Hart <kwh...@frontier.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> [He's the remaining enigma]
o Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca>
o "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available> (aka Rudy Wieser)
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> [He's not as dumb as most]
o Snit (the only poster in decades that I had to killfile!)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

To be fair, call recording is clearly too difficult of a question for them.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 07:29:14 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

> They are simply illegal.

And, the lemon juice hid the face of the bank robber from the camera.

Which is to say...
o The imaginary belief system of Joerg Lorenz is completely immune to fact.

[VanguardLH]

The problem with your post(s) is that you are ASSUMING Google made the
change due to legalities. You have nothing to back up that claim. From
my reading of Google's API and the change for Android Pie, it seems
Google considers backgrounded apps that record calls a security issue.

[Carlos E.R.]

Yep.

Also, someone installing such a tool on somebody else's phone and
listening to those conversations, without they knowing.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 03:54:12 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Also, someone installing such a tool on somebody else's phone and
> listening to those conversations, without they knowing.

I don't have Android 9 (I'm on 7) where I hope there's a way for the
"owner" of the phone to set it up if they want it (sans rooting).

There might not be though ... which means that rooting becomes more
important if that (and SMB servers) is what people want to do.

[Piet]

Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Re legality. Here sometimes companies call us and say they are going to
> record the call for legal reasons, for contracting some service, say. If
> they are recording, so we can.

Here it's pretty common for big companies. The usual "argument" is
"for training purposes". Reality is often to have proof that you
have cosed an agreement, inferring that from something you've said
wrong, said unclearly, suggested, etc.
Here it's legally allowed to record a phone conversation, provided
you are participant in that conversation, and with the restriction
that you may only use it privately or as legal proof. Publication
is illegal.

-p