I operate under the assumption that all phone conversations, video/audio calls, and even in-person meetings at someone’s home or at a third-party establishment, such as a restaurant, are being recorded.

In countries like Japan, Canada, and presumably the United States, among others, whenever I contact a government agency, telecommunications company (TELCO), or any business utilizing third-party call centers—especially those that route calls through agencies in the Philippines—I consistently hear the introductory disclaimer that “this call may be recorded for quality assurance.”

As someone who is not a native English speaker, I appreciate the one-party consent rule, especially when conducting interviews with candidates who are fluent in English (as they often speak rapidly) or those whose native language is not English (as many may have a pronounced accent). Even when our communication is good, having a recording allows me to avoid the need to take notes in real-time and instead I can concentrate more on the candidate. I believe this approach makes interviews into more of a conversation and less of an interrogation.

When it comes to video recordings, I always ask for consent from all parties involved. However, for audio recordings, I’ve typically adhered to the one-consent rule, at least in the countries where I am currently located (Japan←→Canada), whether I’m the one recording or being recorded. Having said that, after reading the article, I think I’ll change my approach by explicitly seeking consent from all parties in future calls, mostly as a gesture of respect.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand that recording phone conversations without knowledge/consent is legal in Utah, at least, and some other states. My guess would be that meetings are similar.

It's a little bit academic as most platforms (eg zoom) notify participants of in-band recording, and employee handbooks will often mention the possibility of recording and retention.

link to the article: https://www.bluedothq.com/blog/call-recording-laws