Should you record meetings? Why „please don't record“ is a trust problem

Should you record meetings? In most cases yes, provided everyone involved is informed in advance, agrees, and the data is processed in line with GDPR. That's the position of Felix Degeler, founder of Degeler Consulting (DC) in Vienna, who implements AI projects with mid-sized companies and uses transcripts as a knowledge base.

Whoever refuses a recording rarely protects anything by doing so. Usually the refusal points to a trust problem in the group, not a problem with the technology.

When someone on a call says „please don't record“, I usually just nod. Even though I think it's pretty wrong. The most common argument is: it could be used against me someday. Let's see whether that holds up.

Does not recording a meeting protect me?

Hardly. What is said in a meeting leaves the room even without a recording, through participants' notes, minutes and memories.

Nobody has ever guaranteed that something stays in the room just because it isn't recorded. Somebody takes notes, somewhere minutes are being kept. And one person is guaranteed to remember exactly the one moment you don't want to leave the room.

So the protection that not recording promises hardly exists. It only feels that way.

What gets lost without a recording?

What gets lost is the transcript, the knowledge from the conversation that's still useful weeks later.

A meeting recording is a capture of the audio, video or text of a conversation, made with the knowledge of everyone involved. The transcript is its searchable text version.

Of an hour-long conversation, most is gone the next day. With a transcript I have what I call liquid gold: knowledge about the project I can still use weeks later, for example as context for AI. How we use transcripts as AI context has its own article.

The minutes also practically write themselves from the same transcript. How to automate meeting notes is covered in detail as well.

What are the pros and cons of meeting recordings?

The biggest advantage is a reliable memory for everyone. The biggest drawback: some people speak more cautiously when they know they're being recorded.

Among the advantages: commitments, objections and figures can be checked later. Whoever wasn't there can read up instead of getting a filtered summary. And misunderstandings can be cleared up by looking it up instead of arguing about who said what.

Among the drawbacks is responsibility for the data. Someone has to decide where the recording is stored, who has access and when it gets deleted. A video also contains more than the work needs: faces, backgrounds, side remarks.

Most drawbacks can be handled with clear rules. Holding back in conversation can't be regulated away, it only disappears with trust.

Am I allowed to record a Teams or Zoom meeting?

Generally yes, if everyone involved is informed in advance and agrees. A recording is processing of personal data and therefore falls under GDPR.

In practice this means: everyone needs to know that it's being recorded, what for, where the recording is stored and when it will be deleted. The notice Teams or Zoom shows once recording starts does not replace this information. It only appears after the decision has already been made.

In Austria, secretly recording other people's conversations is a criminal offence (Section 120 of the Criminal Code, StGB). So secret recording is not a grey area, it's off limits.

This is a general overview, not legal advice. For your specific situation, for example with a works council or conversation partners from other countries, clarify the details with your data protection adviser.

The real issue is trust

Every meeting rests on trust anyway. If you don't trust the group you're sitting with, you have a trust problem with that group, not with recordings.

The transcript doesn't change that, it only makes the problem visible. That's why I see hardly any reason not to record meetings, as long as the ground rules are clear.

How to introduce meeting recordings fairly

Fair means: nobody is surprised, and everyone keeps control over sensitive moments. Five steps are enough.

Step 1, announce it in advance: mention in the invitation that you'd like to record or transcribe the conversation. Anyone with concerns can raise them calmly and doesn't have to say no in front of the whole group.

Step 2, name the purpose: say specifically what the recording is needed for, for example the minutes or project context. A clear purpose answers the question „what will this be used against me for?“ before anyone asks it.

Step 3, clarify storage and deletion: decide where the recording is kept, who can access it and when it gets deleted. Whoever can answer that in one sentence removes most of the other side's concerns in advance.

Step 4, allow a pause: offer to stop the recording for sensitive passages. The offer alone lowers the barrier, even if it's rarely used.

Step 5, transcript instead of video: for most purposes the text is enough. It contains less personal data than a video and is easier to search. That's why we transcribe with a local setup including speaker recognition.

How do I bring up the recording in a meeting?

Ideally in the first few seconds, before the content starts, as an open question to everyone.

A wording that works: „Before we start: I'd like to transcribe this conversation so I don't summarise anything wrongly afterwards. The transcript stays with us, is only used for this project and gets deleted after the agreed period. If something shouldn't go on record, just say so and I'll stop. Is that okay for everyone?“

The last sentence is what matters. The question has to be meant openly, and saying no must not embarrass anyone. Otherwise the consent is worthless.

When is it right not to record?

Whenever one person doesn't agree. Then there's no recording, without discussion and without pressing them in front of the group.

Performance reviews and conversations about health belong here too. They involve particularly sensitive information, and the power imbalance in the room makes voluntary consent difficult.

Confidential negotiations, for example about prices, contracts or equity, also often work better without a recording. There, openly exploring positions is the point of the conversation.

So my point is not that every conversation has to be recorded. My point is that „please don't record“ in everyday project work is rarely protection and usually a sign of missing trust. How we set up collaboration clearly from the start is described in our services.