Call recording regulations in South Africa, voice recording regulations in South Africa, telephone call recording regulations in South Africa, voice logger regulations in South Africa, voice logging regulations in South Africa, cheap for PABX PBX switchboards in Johannesburg, Gauteng, Pretoria, Midrand, Centurion, Randburg, Cape Town, Durban, Richards Bay, Pietermaritzburg, Limpopo, Polokwane, Pietersburg, Mpumalanga, Nelspruit, Witbank, Port Elizabeth, East London, Knysna, George, Mossel Bay, Kimberley and Bloemfontein regulations in South Africa.

Best Prices:  To get a quote on cheap call recording voice recording telephone call recording voice logger voice logging for PABX PBX switchboards click here.

In South Africa the interception, telephone call recording and monitoring of communications is governed by the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provisions of Communications-Related Information Act, 70 of 2002 ("RICA").  In principle RICA provides that no person may intentionally intercept or attempt to intercept any communication in the course of its transmission in South Africa.  This prohibition of interception applies to all persons, private or public.

RICA came into effect in September 2005.  Regulation of telephone call recording in South Africa stipulates that the converstaion will then have to be done on the basis that the person or client is informed that the telephone conversation will be recorded for whatever purpose.

http://www.justanswer.com/south-africa-law/4odv8-law-south-africa-recording-telephone-conversations.html

The basic rule is that a party to the conversation can record the telephone call conversation. Someone else can record with the consent of one party to the conversation.

South Africa legislation is the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Communication Related Information Act, 70 of 2002.

Relevant telephone call recording regulations in South Africa for interception of communication by party to communication
(1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer, may intercept any communication if he or she is a party to the communication, unless such communication is intercepted by such person for purposes of committing an offence.
(2) Any law enforcement officer may intercept any communication if he or she is-
(a) a party to the communication; and
(b) satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the interception of a communication of another party to the communication is necessary on a ground referred to in section 16 (5) (a),
unless such communication is intercepted by such law enforcement officer for purposes of committing an offence.

Interception of communication with consent of party to communication
(1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer, may intercept any communication if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent in writing to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted by such person for purposes of committing an offence.
(2) Any law enforcement officer may intercept any communication if-
(a) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent in writing to such interception;
(b) he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the party who has given consent as contemplated in paragraph (a) will-
(i) participate in a direct communication or that a direct communication will be directed to him or her; or
(ii) send or receive an indirect communication; and
(c) the interception of such direct or indirect communication is necessary on a ground referred to in section 16 (5) (a),
unless such communication is intercepted by such law enforcement officer for purposes of committing an offence.

Interception of indirect communication in connection with carrying on of business

(1) Any person may, in the course of the carrying on of any business, intercept any indirect communication-
(a) by means of which a transaction is entered into in the course of that business;
(b) which otherwise relates to that business; or
(c) which otherwise takes place in the course of the carrying on of that business,
in the course of its transmission over a telecommunication system.
(2) A person may only intercept an indirect communication in terms of subsection (1)-
(a) if such interception is effected by, or with the express or implied consent of, the system controller;
(b) for purposes of-
(i) monitoring or keeping a record of indirect communications-
(aa) in order to establish the existence of facts;
(bb) for purposes of investigating or detecting the unauthorised use of that telecommunication system; or
(cc) where that is undertaken in order to secure, or as an inherent part of, the effective operation of the system; or
(ii) monitoring indirect communications made to a confidential voice-telephony counselling or support service which is free of charge, other than the cost, if any, of making a telephone call, and operated in such a way that users thereof may remain anonymous if they so choose;
(c) if the telecommunication system concerned is provided for use wholly or partly in connection with that business; and
(d) if the system controller has made all reasonable efforts to inform in advance a person, who intends to use the telecommunication system concerned, that indirect communications transmitted by means thereof may be intercepted or if such indirect communication is intercepted with the express or implied consent of the person who uses that telecommunication system.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/126307-Legallity-of-recording-phone-calls

It is always productive to think of ways in which ordinary South African's can take steps to combat corruption. Recording people soliciting bribes could indeed be an effective way to combat corruption. However, it is an area that is carefully regulated; and for a good reason. When we have conversations with each other we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording those conversations without our permission is an invasion of our right to privacy. And using evidence in a trial that was obtained by violating constitutional rights can render the trial unfair. Courts will not admit evidence if it would make the trial unfair. The interception and monitoring of telecommunications - whether conversations, telephone calls, emails or any other form of communication, is regulated by the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act 70 of 2002, better known as RICA. RICA distinguishes between different types of conversations. All conversations are either participant conversations or non-participant conversations. If the person recording is one of the parties to the conversation, it is a participant conversation. If the recording person is not a party - if he is eavesdropping from across the room, or listening in through a phone tap - it is a non-participant conversation. Ordinary people are always allowed to record conversations in which they are a participant. If a policeman pulls you over at a roadblock and tries to solicit a bribe, or an official of Home Affairs tries to solicit a bribe for the speedy processing of your ID application, you are fully entitled to record that conversation. That recording will normally be admissible in both criminal and disciplinary proceedings. Policemen, on the other hand, are normally not allowed to record conversations, even if they are part of the discussion. They can only do so if they have reason to believe that a serious offence is likely to be committed or that national security, public health or safety is at risk.   There are good reasons for treating policemen differently from the average Joe. Policemen have strong incentives to try and identify potential criminals or to gather evidence on people they suspect of crimes.  We don’t want policemen hanging out at bars with their recorders on hoping to pick up some evidence of criminality in bars. That is what happens in a police state. The way policemen generally get around this provision is to get an informer to wear a wire. Our courts have held that non-policemen are free to record his own conversations even if they are put up to it by the police. As far as recording conversations that you are not a part of, the general rule is that you can’t.  Eavesdropping on another person’s private conversation is an obvious invasion of privacy an against regulations in South Africa. This is most relevant to the police who may want to tap someone’s phone in order to collect evidence. If they want to do so, they have to get the permission of a judge first. If they don’t get that permission, any evidence they overhear will be inadmissible. When the police were investigating South Africa’s biggest ever robbery - more than R31 million - they lied to the judge to get permission to tap phones. All the evidence they heard through the tap was inadmissible in the trial. Take a stand and report an incident of corruption. This article originally appeared in the Sunday Times Business Times on 18 November 2012.

Call recording regulations in South Africa, voice recording regulations in South Africa, telephone call recording regulations in South Africa, voice logger regulations in South Africa, voice logging regulations in South Africa, cheap for PABX PBX switchboards in Johannesburg, Gauteng, Pretoria, Midrand, Centurion, Randburg, Cape Town, Durban, Richards Bay, Pietermaritzburg, Limpopo, Polokwane, Pietersburg, Mpumalanga, Nelspruit, Witbank, Port Elizabeth, East London, Knysna, George, Mossel Bay, Kimberley and Bloemfontein regulations in South Africa.

 
_