AI agent safety · L2 · 20 min

Consent and recording, as education

Learn in five minutes

This room is educational. It is not legal advice. The rule depends on the place, the parties, and the current text.
Cornell's copy of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) says it is not unlawful under that chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where that person is a party, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act.
That sentence is one federal exception. It does not say every state uses the same rule. Confirm the current code where the people are.
Telling the person the call is recorded is a learning habit. It is not a finding that your notice was lawful.
Do not record a real person for this lab.

Copy the statute's condition, then write 'confirm the state.' Do not turn the federal sentence into a permission slip.

Write: federal § 2511(2)(d), as copied by Cornell, describes a one-party consent exception with a criminal-or-tortious purpose limit.
Write: state rules can differ. I have not confirmed one.
Write: this is not legal advice.
Do not add a state name you did not open a current statute for.

One-party exception: The federal condition in § 2511(2)(d) as copied by Cornell. It is not a map of state law.

Sisters: Human handoff, NIST AI RMF, OWASP LLM risks, Recording statutes.

The voice channel does not remove the tool cap or the person who must approve an action that is hard to undo.

A later test can add a script you wrote. It cannot add a legal conclusion.

The answer looks fluent and is wrong. Check whether a source passage actually contains the claim.
The loop never stops. Set a step cap and stop when the tool result repeats.

18 U.S.C. § 2511, Cornell Law School spec Educational reading of one federal section. Not legal advice, and not a survey of state law. last checked 2026-10