Recording audio on your security cam system and privacy laws

[Sybertiger]

I was reading an article written by Nelly's Security about concerns with regard to privacy (see below) and recording others or being recorded by others.

I realize that every State may be different laws regarding audio recordings and one-party vs two-party recording. Typically, the discussion revolves around wire-tapping (phone conversations) so it's not clear to me the specifics of security camera systems recording audio since that is typically overheard and not within a phone conversation. Is there a difference between recording audio on private property (your own) versus public property (public street in front of your home)? What about States with two-party requirement (Florida) versus one-party (Georgia)? Does one/two-party laws even come into play with security cams recording audio?

I have no expectations that what I say outside of my house (in my yard or on the street) is private although I'd probably lower my voice if it's something I don't want to broadcast to everyone. For example, what happens if you record your neighbor allowing his dog to shit in your yard and you can hear him tell his buddy "I purposely walk my dog over here to shit in this guys yard"....so you go confront the guy and he denies it was his dog...then you play back the video of his dog in your yard...but he gets upset that you recorded his "private" conversation with his buddy who was standing on the street and he's going to sue you (because he's a real dick). This isn't a real situation that happened but it illustrates what I'm curious about....what say you?

Concerned About Privacy? Here's What To Do If Your Neighbor's Security

It can be unnerving to step outside your home and see your neighbor’s new security camera aimed right at your property. If you’re concerned about your privacy and wondering whether or not your neighbor is breaking the law, you’ve come to the right place. In this blog post, we’ll answer your...

www.nellyssecurity.com

 

[wittaj]

Classic case of the laws not being updated based on current situations. Many of those laws were on the books long before these types of cameras and especially the consumer grade cameras became a mainstay.

if there were an issue with it, one would hope the police would not be partnering with Ring and others to allow folks to be able to distribute their audio and video to them...If it were a big issue in your jurisdiction, I would hope they would not ask for it and jeopardize their case if a defense attorney could use it to make a claim to dismiss the case based on illegally obtained recordings....but we do see that happen on other items where they say the police illegally obtained information, searched, etc...

Amazon’s Ring now reportedly partners with more than 2,000 US police and fire departments

Privacy advocates have raised concerns about the program

www.theverge.com

As you mentioned, laws vary by state and local laws. Some say if you have a sign on your property indicating that video and audio is being recorded, that is sufficient in states that allow one-party.

Legality of Security Camera Usage & Placement in 2025

There are two types of laws that greatly influence the legality of security cameras: Expectation of privacy laws for video recordings and one- or two-party

www.security.org

We can let the attorney members here indicate if any of this type of footage has ever been tossed out based on a defendant's attorney claiming it was illegally recorded....

 

[Sybertiger]

I'd like some insight from the experts on this because of the obvious, where some dickhead doesn't take responsibility for their actions and turn this around on you to make it a debate on the legality of recording them. It'd be nice to be able to shut down any conversation about "I'm gonna sue you for illegally recording my conversation" to focus on said dickheads bad behavior.

 

[Sybertiger]

What is also interesting about this discussion is when you factor in those of you who are purposely trying to conceal your cams. For example, I've seen some folks on here put the cam in a fake bird feeder. This could be construed simply as "I don't want an ugly ass camera messing up the aesthetics of my yard" or it could be construed as "I'm trying to catch people without them ever knowing a camera is there".

Personally, I try to mount cams as cleanly as possible so it doesn't become an eyesore. I also have a small sign next to my walkway that can be seen from the street (if you have good vision). I don't mind nipping it in the butt by letting folks know it might be better to avoid my house if you don't want to be recorded. Note that this sign says nothing about recording audio.

 

[Mike A.]

My state is one-party consent as far as audio recording goes. So I'm good to record it. There are some nuances to that though. As I understand it, while I'm free to record, what's recorded can't necessarily be used as evidence in a civil proceeding without stated consent by both parties at the beginning of the audio. I think that's intended to ensure that some agreement or whatever isn't taken out of context, etc. It can be used as evidence on the criminal side without consent. Also while I can record and make the audio available as I may, if that causes harm in some way to the other party, then that's a separate matter. i.e., I'm free to do it, but however the cards play out on that are as they are.

 

[fenderman]

My state is one-party consent as far as audio recording goes. So I'm good to record it. There are some nuances to that though. As I understand it, while I'm free to record, what's recorded can't necessarily be used as evidence in a civil proceeding without stated consent by both parties at the beginning of the audio. I think that's intended to ensure that some agreement or whatever isn't taken out of context, etc. It can be used as evidence on the criminal side without consent. Also while I can record and make the audio available as I may, if that causes harm in some way to the other party, then that's a separate matter. i.e., I'm free to do it, but however the cards play out on that are as they are.

Understand that one party consent requires that someone who is a party to the conversation to consent. You would still not be permitted to record a conversation to which your are not a party as in OP's example. You can avoid this problem completely by placing a sign indicating that audio is being recorded. Moreover it can be argued at a camera placed in plain view is sufficient notice. Finally courts will not bar video evidence even with audio and will come up with a reason to allow it as in this case. Judge: Audio from Ring doorbell can be used as evidence in Rochester shooting case

Ring and the like would be out of business if this was a real issue.

 

[Sybertiger]

Sounds like my sign might not be sufficient as it doesn't explicitly mention audio recording.

 

[Mike A.]

Understand that one party consent requires that someone who is a party to the conversation to consent. You would still not be permitted to record a conversation to which your are not a party as in OP's example...

Does that apply where there is no necessary expectation of privacy, e.g., outdoors on a public sidewalk in front of my house? Someone (or more than one) at my front door speaking but not necessarily to me?

A sign would seem to solve the issue in any case.

 

[DsineR]

Sounds like my sign might not be sufficient as it doesn't explicitly mention audio recording.

Or take away 'video' from your sign

 

[Sybertiger]

Does that apply where there is no necessary expectation of privacy, e.g., outdoors on a public sidewalk in front of my house? Someone (or more than one) at my front door speaking but not necessarily to me?

A sign would seem to solve the issue in any case.

This sign might not work in your example since they have not entered your property.

 

[Sybertiger]

Then, for those who don't know how to define what a woman is or don't know the meaning of "is" you have to wonder if this one is sufficient since it doesn't explicitly mention being recorded. This quickly becomes a discussion over why they have to print "this plastic bag is not a toy, do not put it over your head".

 

[fenderman]

Does that apply where there is no necessary expectation of privacy, e.g., outdoors on a public sidewalk in front of my house? Someone (or more than one) at my front door speaking but not necessarily to me?

A sign would seem to solve the issue in any case.

Yes it would apply generally on a sidewalk if someone is speaking in a low volume such that they would not expect to be heard. If they are yelling then no. For what its worth, I record audio with no signs. Not worried at all.

 

[sebastiantombs]

My favorite caution label was on an clothes iron, this device can cause burns while in operation.

 

[Mike A.]

My favorite caution label was on an clothes iron, this device can cause burns while in operation.

 

[nfamos1]

This sign might not work in your example since they have not entered your property.

View attachment 136472

We use this sign at our restaurant along with a similar sign stating that the property is protected by 24-hour audio and video surveillance. That basically covers inside and outside the shop.

 

[looney2ns]

I like the "Do Not Eat" on the desiccant silica gel packs.

 

[Sybertiger]

I like the "Do Not Eat" on the desiccant silica gel packs.

I wonder if that has something to do with my constipation.

 

[mat200]

Due to the numerous complexities with variations in state laws:

I would definitely post a sign like what @Sybertiger posted and try to keep audio off on any cameras which may catch audio from the neighbors who wish to have privacy ..

If the noise is loud enough, the cameras at the front will capture it .. ( like windows being broken .. )