Laws operate by restriction, not allowance. That which is not prohibited is permitted.
The probibitions on recording only apply to third parties. If you are part of the conversation, (or the participants have no expectation of privacy) it is permissible for you to record that conversation.
A person who unlawfully listens to or records with a technical device
a discussion, talk or other sounds of private life, where these are not intended for his or her
knowledge and which occur or arise in a place covered by the right to domestic privacy, or
secretly, elsewhere than in a place covered by the right to domestic privacy, talk that is not
intended for his or her knowledge or for the knowledge of any other third parties, where the
circumstances are such that the speaker has no reason to believe that a third party is listening
shall be sentenced for
eavesdropping to a fine or to imprisonment for at most one year.
An attempt is punishable.
This to me seems like it reads against what you are saying no?
EDIT: And actually, isn’t this more about an unknown third party anyway?
two party consent vs one party consent. The more I learn about it, the more I understand why my old boss hated my clarifying questions on business strategy…
In Portugal the law states any party can record as long it gets consent from the other parties, and those consents can be withdrawn at any time.
In finland, you can record any conversation that you are a part of, without asking.
Can you point me to the law that allows that?
Laws operate by restriction, not allowance. That which is not prohibited is permitted.
The probibitions on recording only apply to third parties. If you are part of the conversation, (or the participants have no expectation of privacy) it is permissible for you to record that conversation.
https://www.finlex.fi/api/media/statute-foreign-language-translation/893995/mainPdf/main.pdf?timestamp=2025-12-04T06%3A17%3A49.000Z
Chapter 24, section 5.
Am I reading the correct bit?
Chapter 24, section 5 - Eavesdropping
This to me seems like it reads against what you are saying no?
EDIT: And actually, isn’t this more about an unknown third party anyway?
It’s part one, if you are in the discussion, it is intended for you to know, and so is not a crime to record.
Sharing the recording may break other laws though.
two party consent vs one party consent. The more I learn about it, the more I understand why my old boss hated my clarifying questions on business strategy…
Hmm, ex post facto?
More to say, if I agree to the recording at the beginning and then a few minutes into the call change my mind, that’s allowed.
I can’t really wait until an hour after the call, realize I shouldn’t have over shared and ring you to say that you can’t record our call.