How to record VP calls? To prove doctors refusing interpreters

Kai Onca

Active Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
6
I'm wondering, just frustrated with doctors of any kind trying to get interpreters set up for office visits is just downright a huge obstacle.

The last doctor I set up an appointment a month ago, I had to explain to the rude office lady on the phone that I cannot simply go to a doctor that signs as they're magically somewhere else, I am limited where/who accepts my health insurance as she said they do not serve deaf patient and do not have the office help to locate/find an interpreter. I was so patient and explained its the law., she was so rude and said she will "look into it" I gave her a number of a local interpreting abench....

A day before the appointment, I get a sign mail that my appointment with the doc was tomorrow and they called hospitals and was unable to get an interpreter.

Oh really? :roll:

I've also gotten the runabout in some offices pretending they have never heard or had a record of me calling the day before when I am following up on specific doctor , had it happen 5 days in a row. Some offices have said they will call me back when they never did. I had good experiences with the doctors I ended up with over the years.

I'm just done with "educating" them as nice as I could. I am from the burbs of Chicago and there is no way none of the offices have never had deaf patient and I got a huge feeling they are trying to make it harder for new patients to get in and discourage them to look elsewhere.

I want hard cold proof of how some of the conversations with the office people are downright nasty and want to show it to my coworkers and hearing family members how it really is when they all think it's easy to get an interpreter let alone an appointment.

I use Sorenson VP if that helps at all...what I plan on doing is it illegal or legal for me to use that evidence to submit a complaint?
 
I don't know about the legality of it all so can't answer that.

But as for the other....
It seems that you might be able to record a live VRS call. Quick early morning google brought me this site--

http://blogs.techsmith.com/tips-how-tos/how-to-record-skype-google-hangouts-and-webinars/

Skip down to page 10 and it tells you some info there on what you can use and how. I know it says for Skype and google Hangouts but VRS is based on the same principle as those two with video.

That's all I could find with the terms I used (I got to page 5 of my results before I gave up lol).

That sucks though about all the trouble you've been having. I recently went to a 2nd opinion eye doctor (I may be switching to him I like him and his office so much)- they were more than happy to communicate via email (I initiated through their website) and THEY were the ones who asked the best way to communicate while on the appointment before I could say anything

:jaw: Nice to see that.
 
In order to be able to record conversation with other party with intention of being used in court of law, u must inform the other party that u record the conversation for your protection and others. They must acknowledge them and can either say nothing or anything. Failure to do so, judge will throw these evidence away.

Very difficult to prove with the law thats written.
 
I'm wondering, just frustrated with doctors of any kind trying to get interpreters set up for office visits is just downright a huge obstacle.

The last doctor I set up an appointment a month ago, I had to explain to the rude office lady on the phone that I cannot simply go to a doctor that signs as they're magically somewhere else, I am limited where/who accepts my health insurance as she said they do not serve deaf patient and do not have the office help to locate/find an interpreter. I was so patient and explained its the law., she was so rude and said she will "look into it" I gave her a number of a local interpreting abench....

A day before the appointment, I get a sign mail that my appointment with the doc was tomorrow and they called hospitals and was unable to get an interpreter.

Oh really? :roll:

I've also gotten the runabout in some offices pretending they have never heard or had a record of me calling the day before when I am following up on specific doctor , had it happen 5 days in a row. Some offices have said they will call me back when they never did. I had good experiences with the doctors I ended up with over the years.

I'm just done with "educating" them as nice as I could. I am from the burbs of Chicago and there is no way none of the offices have never had deaf patient and I got a huge feeling they are trying to make it harder for new patients to get in and discourage them to look elsewhere.

I want hard cold proof of how some of the conversations with the office people are downright nasty and want to show it to my coworkers and hearing family members how it really is when they all think it's easy to get an interpreter let alone an appointment.

I use Sorenson VP if that helps at all...what I plan on doing is it illegal or legal for me to use that evidence to submit a complaint?
First of all, you should have said that you used VRS to call the doctor's office. VP is a device, not an interpreting service, alright? If you think I am a PITA, I don't blame you. LOL

http://www.alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=122220

There was a video of VRS interpreting for the deaf guy who applied for a job. It's not there anymore. Why? I suspect that when VRS found out about the recording, it demanded the video to be removed.

Long story short, at my workplace we, deaf employees had a stand-up talk weekly through VRI. One night one of my deaf co-workers made a video recording via her smartphone at the meeting so she could send it to her husband at home to show what VRI looked like. BUT VRI interpreter saw it through high tech camera (unlike a VP) and was pissed off and warned that he would hang up if she didn't stop video-recording him. That's his rights since it's part of his job and you can't video-record an interpreter without permission no matter what a person you are calling says at the other end.

Looks like you need a lawyer for an act of discrimination through "he said, she said".

My health insurance is Kaiser. It's the best. It always provides an interpreter for any appt of mine. They never say no. Before, I had another insurance that won't pay for interpreting services and even the doctors won't pay for them so screw them. My suggestion is that in order to purchase a health insurance, ask questions first. If that insurance company says they will not cover interpreting services, look elsewhere.
 
In order to be able to record conversation with other party with intention of being used in court of law, u must inform the other party that u record the conversation for your protection and others. They must acknowledge them and can either say nothing or anything. Failure to do so, judge will throw these evidence away.

Very difficult to prove with the law thats written.
No, it doesn't work that way. An interpreter in that call can say "no, you can't video-record me", even though the other party says OK.

Maybe Reba or any VRS interpreter who is a member here can tell us more.
 
all VRS and VP calls are confidential. All the VRS services cleaned or dumped or erased all their conversations daily or per every few hours. That FCC policy.
of course, with signmail, dunno how to save it...

There was a video of VRS interpreting for the deaf guy who applied for a job. It's not there anymore. Why? I suspect that when VRS found out about the recording, it demanded the video to be removed.
 
No? you mean its really yes?

You still missed my point, when wish copy and record the conversation, you MUST inform the other party you are talking and recording the conversation. If they agreed to your request, it becomes legal binding which allows you to record the conversation and use in the court of law. You must be able to prove that they AGREE>>>D<<< to your request. If they disagree, they can refuse the call and end the call or won't comment anything further, so you can't use this against them in court of law. That is how it is, same concept with Miranda rights that cop must inform the suspect. If the suspect remains silent, which gives cops harder time finding and use evidence against suspect.

Have you ever wondering why those operators though like customer service, and other claims, etc always said "For your protection, your call is being recording and monitoring for quality of service". This means its your legal agreement with them and they can record and keep and use against you if anything goes wrong. You continue the call indicates you AGREED to the term in the beginning. You could do same thing as your own legal protection.

No, it doesn't work that way. An interpreter in that call can say "no, you can't video-record me", even though the other party says OK.

Maybe Reba or any VRS interpreter who is a member here can tell us more.
 
all VRS and VP calls are confidential. All the VRS services cleaned or dumped or erased all their conversations daily or per every few hours. That FCC policy.
of course, with signmail, dunno how to save it...

There was a video of VRS interpreting for the deaf guy who applied for a job. It's not there anymore. Why? I suspect that when VRS found out about the recording, it demanded the video to be removed.
Tell me how the guy uploaded the video before the website (watchdhn.com) removed it. Illegally video-recorded it using his other device, either a smartphone or camcorder. In other words, it's impossible to upload a VRS call into a website without recording it.
 
http://www.reddit.com/r/deaf/comments/2dyeej/recording_vp_calls_legal_or_illegal/

I did some research on just the user agreement and term of services of various VRS. As far as I can find out, only Sorenson and Convo explicitly forbid recording of any kind.
So if you have any need to record your conversation, then please AVOID Sorenson or ConvoRelay. I'm not sure how the individual interpreters may feel about being recorded so your mileage may vary with the other relay but at the least they can't claim official policy of their company to refuse the recordings.
So DHB, what do you say about this?
 
Its for the company themselves (Sorenson and Convo) really any VRS companies can NOT record and keep for themselves.

You and the other party you are calling is just two parties that can decide to keep or not on recording, VRS company is a THIRD party, that has to be taken out of picture.

When you call ACME banking Corp, you inform the ACME banking corp (NOT the VRS operator) that your call is being recording and monitor for your and ACME banking corp protection. If ACME banking corp reps AGREED to your inform, then you CAN use it against them, what does VRS companies have to do with this? NOTHING AT ALL.

1st party: yourself
2nd party: the one that you wanted to call to
3rd party: Relay the message, nothing else.

As per FCC policy as usual, its between 1st and 2nd party. So the third party (Relay Operator) is prohibited from engage any other activities, not limited to recording, monitoring, getting involved between first two parties.

Get it?

Same with hearing people, if hearing people wants to record the calls, and wanted to use it for legal purpose MUST inform the other party of caller's desire. The other party can either agree or refuse continue the call. That is how it works, same way with VRS, NEVERMIND the third party!

 
Its for the company themselves (Sorenson and Convo) really any VRS companies can NOT record and keep for themselves.

You and the other party you are calling is just two parties that can decide to keep or not on recording, VRS company is a THIRD party, that has to be taken out of picture.

When you call ACME banking Corp, you inform the ACME banking corp (NOT the VRS operator) that your call is being recording and monitor for your and ACME banking corp protection. If ACME banking corp reps AGREED to your inform, then you CAN use it against them, what does VRS companies have to do with this? NOTHING AT ALL.

1st party: yourself
2nd party: the one that you wanted to call to
3rd party: Relay the message, nothing else.

As per FCC policy as usual, its between 1st and 2nd party, third party is prohibited from engage any other activities, not limited to recording, monitoring, getting involved between first two parties.

Get it?

Same with hearing people, if hearing people wants to record the calls, and wanted to use it for legal purpose MUST inform the other party of caller's desire. The other party can either agree or refuse continue the call. That is how it works, same way with VRS, NEVERMIND the third party!
Yeah, I get it. But most of the interpreters don't want their faces shown in public so that's why those VRS companies forbid it. Are you saying that those third parties have no rights?
 
No, it doesn't work that way. An interpreter in that call can say "no, you can't video-record me", even though the other party says OK.

Maybe Reba or any VRS interpreter who is a member here can tell us more.
I've never worked in VRS but DHB explained it.

The interpreter isn't a participant in the conversation. The interpreter is the mode of the conversation. Only the participants need to give permission for recording.
 
Terp, operator of any relay service provider is considered a third party, they have zero part of anything between two parties, they are treated as an invisible, aka ANONYMOUS. You could call terp Guy Fawkes for all I care and yes it is what it is.

Yeah, I get it. But most of the interpreters don't want their faces shown in public so that's why those VRS companies forbid it. Are you saying that those third parties have no rights?
 
I've never worked in VRS but DHB explained it.

The interpreter isn't a participant in the conversation. The interpreter is the mode of the conversation. Only the participants need to give permission for recording.

Exactly, simple and sweet.
 
Yeah, I get it. But most of the interpreters don't want their faces shown in public so that's why those VRS companies forbid it. Are you saying that those third parties have no rights?
If terps don't want their faces shown in public, they're in the wrong business. The very nature of interpreting is being visible. We don't interpret behind curtains.

The reason VRS companies don't want conversations recorded is to protect the confidentiality of the callers, not for the sake of the terps.
 
all VRS and VP calls are confidential. All the VRS services cleaned or dumped or erased all their conversations daily or per every few hours. That FCC policy.
of course, with signmail, dunno how to save it...

Tell me how the guy uploaded the video before the website (watchdhn.com) removed it. Illegally video-recorded it using his other device, either a smartphone or camcorder. In other words, it's impossible to upload a VRS call into a website without recording it.

if I remember correctly from watching it (it's been a while) it seems like the video was actually a "voice mail message" not a live interaction chat. That's why he was able to save it as you can save vmails (at least on ZVRS you can) to your computer to review it.
 
if I remember correctly from watching it (it's been a while) it seems like the video was actually a "voice mail message" not a live interaction chat. That's why he was able to save it as you can save vmails (at least on ZVRS you can) to your computer to review it.
OK, it could be. So where happens to the video right now? I can't find it in that website which was linked by RR.
 
If terps don't want their faces shown in public, they're in the wrong business. The very nature of interpreting is being visible. We don't interpret behind curtains.

The reason VRS companies don't want conversations recorded is to protect the confidentiality of the callers, not for the sake of the terps.
Even the caller want a recording of the call, Sorenson and Convo forbid it, not because they want to protect the confidentiality of the caller who makes the request.

As per Convo user agreement,

You agree not to record, forward, upload on the Internet, or transmit the voice, image, and/or likeness of the relay interpreter in any way for any purpose, or to store, retrieve, use, or facilitate the use of, the voice, image, and/or likeness of the relay interpreter in any way other than as necessary to permit the provision of relay services provided by Convo Communications.

Anyway, if the party at the other end says OK to record the video call, what happens if Convo says you can't record it?
 
Even the caller want a recording of the call, Sorenson and Convo forbid it, not because they want to protect the confidentiality of the caller who makes the request.

As per Convo user agreement,


Anyway, if the party at the other end says OK to record the video call, what happens if Convo says you can't record it?
That's a private company agreement. That's not a regulation or law prohibition. Sounds like a CYAS clause. It still has nothing to do with terps not wanting to show their faces.
 
That's a private company agreement. That's not a regulation or law prohibition. Sounds like a CYAS clause. It still has nothing to do with terps not wanting to show their faces.
My point is that it's possible that it's not admissible as an evidence to a court since one violates the private company agreement.
 
Back
Top