AI笔记工具Granola、智能眼镜、录音手环让“默认录音”成为生产力日常。

加州法律要求私人谈话须经“全员同意”（all-party consent）方可录音。

当知道自己可能无时无刻不在被录音，我们还能真正自由地交谈吗？
当每一次对话都可能被永久记录，一份当事人私自录下的谈话，在法庭上到底能不能作为证据？

 

一份1995年的批复，与两级法院的“同案不同判”

  录音属于《民事诉讼法解释》规定的“视听资料”证据。但在司法实践中，秘密录音是否合法，长期存在争议。

  分歧的起点，是最高人民法院1995年作出的《关于未经对方当事人同意私自录制其谈话取得的资料不能作为证据使用的批复》（法复〔1995〕2号）。该批复认为，未经对方同意私自录制的谈话资料，不符合证据合法性原则，不能作为证据使用。该批复已于 2019年7月20日经法释〔2019〕11号《废止部分司法解释（第十三批）的决定》废止，即'未经同意即不合法'规则已不再作为裁判依据。

  然而，2001年《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》（以下简称《证据规定》）及2015年《民事诉讼法解释》的出台，使非法证据的认定标准被重新界定。需特别说明：2001年《证据规定》第68条曾规定“以侵害他人合法权益或者违反法律禁止性规定的方法取得的证据，不能作为认定案件事实的依据”，但该条已在2019年法释〔2019〕19号修正时被删除，不再作为现行依据。现行有效的非法证据排除标准，规定于《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》（2022年修正）第106条：对以严重侵害他人合法权益、违反法律禁止性规定或者严重违背公序良俗的方法形成或者获取的证据，不得作为认定案件事实的根据。新标准取代了“一刀切”的同意规则：未经对方同意录制，并不当然导致证据非法。

  “成某与晓晴民间借贷纠纷案”中，晓晴在成某车内、办公室录下四段谈话，证明借款事实。一、二审法院均认为，录音未侵害成某合法权益，亦未违反法律禁止性规定，依据《证据规定》认定其合法。

  “张某诉陈某合同纠纷案”，张某向广东省高级人民法院申请再审时，提交了一段由其女儿录制的与陈某的谈话录音。广东省高院以法复〔1995〕2号批复为由，认为录音未经陈某同意，不能采纳。最高人民法院在再审中推翻该观点，指出：“未经对方当事人同意私自录制其谈话，系指对涉及对方当事人的隐私场所进行的偷录并侵犯对方当事人或其他人合法权益的行为。”该案录音发生在宾馆大厅，现场除张某、陈某外还有他人在场，未侵犯他人合法权益，最终被采纳并成为改判的重要依据。

手机录音到底算不算偷录？

  未经同意录音并非天然非法。最高人民法院及各地高院的裁判思路，已经从“是否经同意”转向“是否侵害合法权益、是否违反法律禁止性规定、是否违背公序良俗”。学界与实务界通常将秘密录音区分为两种情形：

  第一种，将录音设备留置在他人办公室、住宅、车辆等私人空间，离开后录制他人与第三人的谈话。此类录音极易侵扰他人私人生活安宁，且可能录制与自身主张无关的隐私内容，一般被认定为非法证据。

  第二种，在公共场所或私人场所与对方进行正常交谈时，用手机、录音笔等设备同步录音。被录音者明知自己正在与录音者对话，录音内容也限于双方交谈过程，未侵入私密空间，亦未获知对方原本不愿披露的隐私信息。此类录音通常不侵犯他人合法权益，符合合法性要求。

  最高人民法院在（2021）最高法民再117号参考案例中进一步指出：当事人未经公证而自行录制取得的视听资料，应当按照法定程序全面、客观地对其真实性、合法性、关联性进行审查，并结合其他证据综合认定，“不能仅因其未经公证而直接否认其证明力”。（2021）最高法民再213号案例亦表明，手机拍摄、录制的资料与其他证据相互印证、形成证据链的，可以作为认定事实的依据。

  地方法院的态度同样趋于明确，但对录音证据的采纳持审慎立场。

  福建省高级人民法院（2024）闽民申2001号劳动争议案中，法院采纳了劳动者提交的录音以认定佣金及离职事实，但同时以“未经对方同意录制、对方不认可真实性合法性”为由，否定了用人单位一方提交的与案外人聊天录音——同一裁定清晰呈现“合法录音可采、违法录音不采”的两端。四川省高级人民法院（2019）川民终1067号合资合作开发房地产纠纷案中，法院明确“录音证据不能作为本案主要定案依据”，仅将其作为土地价格的参照，并指出一审在对方主张录音疑似剪辑、且申请鉴定未获准许的情况下径行采信，存在程序瑕疵。

实务

  如将录音作为证据使用，建议从以下四个方面审核：

  第一，工具合法。使用普通手机、录音笔等合法设备录制。避免使用窃听、偷拍设备，或在他人的私密空间内秘密放置录音器材。

  第二，场所适当。尽量在双方正常交谈的公开或半公开场合录音；避免闯入他人住宅、酒店客房、更衣室等高度私密空间，或录制他人与第三人的私下谈话。

  第三，内容相关。录音内容应围绕自身主张的事实，避免涉及他人隐私、商业秘密或与案件无关的第三人信息。录音应完整、连贯，不得剪辑、拼接。

  第四，保存原始。保留原始录音文件及录制设备，必要时可申请公证；同时尽量与其他证据（合同、转账记录、聊天记录等）相互印证，形成完整证据链。

 

结语

  《华尔街日报》“To record or not to record? That is no longer a question for people in tech. The answer is a resounding yes.” 如今，没有AI记事工具参与的Zoom在线会议似乎就不能算完整：会上，人们拿出手机，录下每一句话。即便是一时兴起与同事聊上几句，也会有人打开诸如 Granola 的转录应用，将谈话整理成一页纸的摘要或列出一份待办事项清单。甚至在酒吧、约会时，人们也开始使用搭载AI的监听应用，以便事后分析这段谈话。是不是可以换个角度想，录音不是“偷”出来的证据，而是“留”下来的事实。

 

参考资料：

1、（2021）最高法民再117号 苏梦与京山县新市镇品尚音乐厅著作权权属、侵权纠纷再审案（最高人民法院入库案例）当事人未经公证自行录制取得的视听资料，不能仅因未经公证而否认其证明力；手机拍摄视频＋照片＋支付凭证形成证据链即予采信；

2、（2021）最高法民再213号 苏某与湖北某某旅游文化发展有限公司某某山庄著作权权属、侵权纠纷再审案（最高人民法院入库案例）手机拍摄视频＋照片＋消费单据形成证据链，被告无相反证据推翻即予认定侵权。

3、(2024)闽民申2001号 厦门市某某公司与顾某某劳动争议再审审查案 ①采纳了顾某某提交的录音，据以认定提成与离职原因；②否定了公司一方提交的"工作人员与案外人聊天录音"（未经对方同意录制、对方不认可真实性合法性）。该案同时体现"合法录音可采、违法录音不采"两端，不宜单作"高院采纳录音"的正面例证。

4、(2019)川民终1067号 肖永全、肖永秀与谢庆远、谢成书、四川省耀森房地产开发有限公司合资、合作开发房地产合同纠纷二审案 四川省高级人民法院明确“录音证据不能作为本案主要定案依据”，仅可作土地价格参照；并指出一审在对方主张录音未经同意、疑似剪辑且申请鉴定未获准许的情况下即采信，属瑕疵。该案例对录音采纳持谨慎态度。

5、This Conversation Is Being Recorded. They All Are.

By Katherine Bindley

@The Wall Street Journal

To record or not to record? That is no longer a question for people in tech. The answer is a resounding yes.

A Zoom call isn’t complete without an artificial-intelligence note taker. Phones are out at meetings, capturing every word. During impromptu conversations with co-workers, someone might turn on the Granola transcription app, which can turn the interactions into one-page summaries or a list of action items. Even at bars and on dates, people are using AI-infused listening apps to analyze conversations later on.

Gone are the days of any interaction being private by default. Asking for permission is out, even though in some situations, that could mean violating the law. It isn’t creepy if it’s in the name of productivity, say the people doing the recording.

“It happens on a daily basis,” says Eric Bahn, a venture capitalist in San Francisco who started noticing it about a year ago. During his meetings with founders, they put phones out on the conference table and then inch them toward him, like he is an athlete at a postgame interview.

Bahn used to ask if he was being recorded. The answer was always “Yes,” followed by, “Is that OK?” Nowadays, he just assumes they are, and chooses his words more carefully.

“I just see this as normal protocol,” he says. “Our society is moving to a state of East Germany.”

With the rise of camera-equipped smartglasses, AI-recording bracelets and other covert devices, a societal shift is under way. And it isn’t clear how much say we will have in the matter—or how much our conversations will change if we all know they’re all being entered into the permanent record.

Emmie Chang, founder of a startup that Bahn’s firm invests in which provides sales-data intelligence, uses AI to transcribe every conversation she can.

At a work conference in Albuquerque, N.M., in May, Chang wore a small pin with a red light indicating it was recording. Someone who worked at the conference eventually approached Chang and told her the device was making people uncomfortable. She found the request to stop recording triggering.

“It’s my thing,” she says. “I’m not attributing who said what. It’s for my general knowledge.”

Chang has also taken to recording most of her first dates, usually with Granola. She puts her phone out on the table or her chair and then once the date is through, she has the feed automatically sent to Anthropic’s Claude to report back on how she did.

“Can I be more engaging and empathetic?” she says she might ask Claude. “What are the percentages of me talking versus them talking?”

Michelle Lim, chief executive of a small AI startup, says she was initially shocked when, about a year ago, very specific words she had used during a phone call were recited back at her in a follow-up conversation. She was convinced she had been recorded and was upset about it.

California is an all-party consent state, meaning it requires all the people in a private conversation to agree to be recorded.

But Lim’s own feelings on acceptable recording practices have since evolved. Now she just assumes she is being recorded, and even encourages the practice within her own company. Granola is enabled for all formally scheduled internal meetings, and when employees are casually catching up at one another’s desks, they often turn it on then, too.

“In the office, we actually get really bummed when we realize we’re having a conversation and we forgot to turn on Granola,” she says. “I wish there was a Granola in every room.”

And Lim typically doesn’t ask if she’s being recorded, even outside the office. “It almost kills the mood,” she says.

AI note takers started appearing in meetings several years ago but there’s usually an indication of their presence. Apps that record or transcribe without any type of alert have taken off more recently.

Granola, founded in 2023, doesn’t actually record or save an audio file but it does transcribe conversations word-for-word. It can then provide summaries and action items. Its mobile app has been downloaded 758,000 times since its launch, according to market-intelligence firm Sensor Tower, which reports that it had 122,000 mobile users in the second quarter of 2026.

There is also a desktop app and a product for businesses, so the user base is likely much larger.

There is no icon that automatically shows up on a Zoom call and no audio notification when Granola is being used on a phone call. Users can enable a watermark feature for video meetings or choose to have the app send a message in the meeting chat that it’s taking notes. In general, laws don’t distinguish between recordings and transcriptions.

Alex Alben, who teaches privacy-law and cybersecurity courses at UCLA School of Law, says people tend to give up privacy to companies they work for. Employees likely have to accept their employer recording or transcribing their chats. But it is different when people are commingling with clients and taking meetings with outside firms.

“Companies need to be careful about technologies that are automatically recording, especially when it involves third parties,” he says. As to whether recording people runs afoul of states’ consent laws, he says context matters and there are some gray areas.

Another concern: “How long are you going to keep that recording? Is it on your phone? Is it on a server?” he says. “There will be a case down the road where someone says, ‘I did not intend for this to be recorded and you are using it in some way to harm me.’ ”

Still, laws do evolve with technology, says Alben. People didn’t used to accept cameras on every city street corner but now it is part of life.

Pocket is a $129 screen-free device about the size of a credit card that can record and transcribe. A companion app provides AI summaries, action items and drafts of follow-up emails. The company raised $11 million last month.

Customers don’t want it to automatically notify others that it is recording, says Akshay Narisetti, Pocket’s CEO. “People prefer to do it themselves.”

However, Narisetti says the Pocket app recommends that users always ask permission, and he says he always does. “People are actually quite open when you tell them about it,” he adds.

The device has a small indicator light and Narisetti says audio recording doesn’t work very well if the device is hidden in a pocket or purse.

Jeremy Levine, a venture capitalist who lives in New York, finds the practice of surreptitious recording hugely offensive.

“That should be socially unacceptable behavior,” Levine says. “I believe it will stifle conversation.”

He says he has since changed his name on Zoom from “Jeremy Levine” to “Jeremy Levine I do not consent to transcribing or recording.”

Reprinted by permission of The Wall Street Journal, Copyright 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.

Original Date of Publication: 7.17, 2026