My neighborhood wants to watch the street together.

[Tolting Colt Acres]

Perhaps. But it is really going to depend on how the law is structured in each particular state. For example, we have likely all seen footage on television from "nanny cams" in people's houses which have included audio. In some instances those recordings were legal, in others, maybe not.

The public setting of an open street also adds to the equation -- again, that "reasonable expectation of privacy" thing. While someone may have a reasonable expectation of privacy from being recorded in a private home, do they have the same reasonable expectation if they are walking down a public road? The argument could be made, for example, that (in a one party consent state) my camera is an extension of me, and thus, I am granting consent for it to record. (Whether or not I could successfully argue that point, though, would depend on exactly how the law is written.)

Unfortunately, laws usually don't keep up with technology -- does my neighbor sunbathing nude in her back yard have an expectation of privacy when my DJ Phantom IV flies straight up over my house, and happens to angle the zoom lens down into her yard?


I guess the reason I originally replied to this thread was I didn't understand why people on the forum seem intent on badgering the OP about audio recording. Ultimately, its his decision, and if he does something stupid which breaks the law, then he'll have to pay the consequences. So, it would behoove him to investigate exactly what his rights are, and what the law says he can and cannot legally do in his state. This thread started to remind me a great deal of threads on hot-rod forums I would read, where people would ask advice and high-speed performance, and then the subsequent 10 pages would be chastising the OP for "breaking the speed limit" laws.

 

[PSPCommOp]

Perhaps. But it is really going to depend on how the law is structured in each particular state. For example, we have likely all seen footage on television from "nanny cams" in people's houses which have included audio. In some instances those recordings were legal, in others, maybe not.

The public setting of an open street also adds to the equation -- again, that "reasonable expectation of privacy" thing. While someone may have a reasonable expectation of privacy from being recorded in a private home, do they have the same reasonable expectation if they are walking down a public road? The argument could be made, for example, that (in a one party consent state) my camera is an extension of me, and thus, I am granting consent for it to record. (Whether or not I could successfully argue that point, though, would depend on exactly how the law is written.)

Unfortunately, laws usually don't keep up with technology -- does my neighbor sunbathing nude in her back yard have an expectation of privacy when my DJ Phantom IV flies straight up over my house, and happens to angle the zoom lens down into her yard?


I guess the reason I originally replied to this thread was I didn't understand why people on the forum seem intent on badgering the OP about audio recording. Ultimately, its his decision, and if he does something stupid which breaks the law, then he'll have to pay the consequences. So, it would behoove him to investigate exactly what his rights are, and what the law says he can and cannot legally do in his state. This thread started to remind me a great deal of threads on hot-rod forums I would read, where people would ask advice and high-speed performance, and then the subsequent 10 pages would be chastising the OP for "breaking the speed limit" laws.

I'm curious, what state do u live in?

 

[fenderman]

Perhaps. But it is really going to depend on how the law is structured in each particular state. For example, we have likely all seen footage on television from "nanny cams" in people's houses which have included audio. In some instances those recordings were legal, in others, maybe not.

The public setting of an open street also adds to the equation -- again, that "reasonable expectation of privacy" thing. While someone may have a reasonable expectation of privacy from being recorded in a private home, do they have the same reasonable expectation if they are walking down a public road? The argument could be made, for example, that (in a one party consent state) my camera is an extension of me, and thus, I am granting consent for it to record. (Whether or not I could successfully argue that point, though, would depend on exactly how the law is written.)

Unfortunately, laws usually don't keep up with technology -- does my neighbor sunbathing nude in her back yard have an expectation of privacy when my DJ Phantom IV flies straight up over my house, and happens to angle the zoom lens down into her yard?


I guess the reason I originally replied to this thread was I didn't understand why people on the forum seem intent on badgering the OP about audio recording. Ultimately, its his decision, and if he does something stupid which breaks the law, then he'll have to pay the consequences. So, it would behoove him to investigate exactly what his rights are, and what the law says he can and cannot legally do in his state. This thread started to remind me a great deal of threads on hot-rod forums I would read, where people would ask advice and high-speed performance, and then the subsequent 10 pages would be chastising the OP for "breaking the speed limit" laws.

You can never make the successful argument that the camera is an extension of yourself, simply because then any recording would be permitted. It would no longer be single party consent if you can argue that the camera or recording device is an extension of yourself.

No one is badgering the op. We are trying to help OP obtain admissible footage as well as prevent a possible criminal cross complaint. Making ridiculous legal arguments that have no basis in fact or law does not help anyone.

 

[PSPCommOp]

It might be worthwhile to point out that One and Two Party consent only matters if the recorder is involved IN the audio being recorded. If two people are walking down the street talking and a 3 person records their conversation, that isn't considered a one or two party consent situation, its considered eavesdropping. Its a felony in most states.

 

[Tolting Colt Acres]

I'm curious, what state do u live in?

Massachusetts.

I had to deal with a similar situation roughly a year and a half ago. I put a FOSCAM PTZ at the end of my driveway to record my intersection (I live on a T intersection where my driveway is above the vertical of the T). Over the two years prior there have been 4 serious accidents at the intersection, due to excessive speed. After much lobbying I was able to convince the town Selectmen to reduce the speed limit and make the intersection a 3-way stop. Well, one "townie" didn't like it (he was one who loved driving 60 down the road, gave me the usual "I've been here 67 years we've never needed no **&@&(&@(&!@ stop signs on this road blah blah blah) and called the town PD when he saw the camera.

Of course, my town PD ignored him, so he called the county DA. I spent roughly a half-hour on the phone with an assistant prosecutor who contacted me, having a discussion about my setup, how I didn't record audio, and my camera was on private property but in "plain view", etc. County DA sided with me, which I fully expected anyway, as I was already well versed in the State's wiretapping and camera statutes.

Fast forward to today, the only difference is I use Hikvision rather than FOSCAM, and on a half-dozen occasions since I've had the local PD ask me for copies of video dealing with cases of property damage, as well as vehicles travelling in the area in certain time periods to aid in their B&E investigations. I believe one hand washes the other, so I always oblige.

Last I knew, dude is still bitchin to the State AG, who is ignoring him.

You can never make the successful argument that the camera is an extension of yourself, simply because then any recording would be permitted. It would no longer be single party consent if you can argue that the camera or recording device is an extension of yourself.

You and I will simply have to politely agree to disagree on this point; ultimately I think it boils down to the exact interpretation of individual state laws, since "unattended" video and audio from "nanny cams" has been admitted as evidence in trials in the past.

It might be worthwhile to point out that One and Two Party consent only matters if the recorder is involved IN the audio being recorded. If two people are walking down the street talking and a 3 person records their conversation, that isn't considered a one or two party consent situation, its considered eavesdropping. Its a felony in most states.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this point, but then, I tend to agree with the logic of decisions by the 1st and 7th Circuit courts in the Glik and Alvarez cases. The key point being, in a public setting, there is no expectation of privacy and the public has a right to record. Unfortunately with the advent of technology, many prosecutors attempt to apply archaic wiretapping statutes designed for landline communication to modern-day human interactions, so we will likely continue to see prosecutions of individuals for some time.


With this post, I'll politely excuse myself from the conversation, since my original response was predicated on what I felt was a surreptitious bashing of the OP based on his decision to record audio, which, although something I personally would never do, is entirely his decision.

It has been a pleasure conversing with you gentlemen on this topic.

 

[PSPCommOp]

Massachusetts.

I had to deal with a similar situation roughly a year and a half ago. I put a FOSCAM PTZ at the end of my driveway to record my intersection (I live on a T intersection where my driveway is above the vertical of the T). Over the two years prior there have been 4 serious accidents at the intersection, due to excessive speed. After much lobbying I was able to convince the town Selectmen to reduce the speed limit and make the intersection a 3-way stop. Well, one "townie" didn't like it (he was one who loved driving 60 down the road, gave me the usual "I've been here 67 years we've never needed no **&@&(&@(&!@ stop signs on this road blah blah blah) and called the town PD when he saw the camera.

Of course, my town PD ignored him, so he called the county DA. I spent roughly a half-hour on the phone with an assistant prosecutor who contacted me, having a discussion about my setup, how I didn't record audio, and my camera was on private property but in "plain view", etc. County DA sided with me, which I fully expected anyway, as I was already well versed in the State's wiretapping and camera statutes.

Fast forward to today, the only difference is I use Hikvision rather than FOSCAM, and on a half-dozen occasions since I've had the local PD ask me for copies of video dealing with cases of property damage, as well as vehicles travelling in the area in certain time periods to aid in their B&E investigations. I believe one hand washes the other, so I always oblige.

Last I knew, dude is still bitchin to the State AG, who is ignoring him.

You and I will simply have to politely agree to disagree on this point; ultimately I think it boils down to the exact interpretation of individual state laws, since "unattended" video and audio from "nanny cams" has been admitted as evidence in trials in the past.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this point, but then, I tend to agree with the logic of decisions by the 1st and 7th Circuit courts in the Glik and Alvarez cases. The key point being, in a public setting, there is no expectation of privacy and the public has a right to record. Unfortunately with the advent of technology, many prosecutors attempt to apply archaic wiretapping statutes designed for landline communication to modern-day human interactions, so we will likely continue to see prosecutions of individuals for some time.

With this post, I'll politely excuse myself from the conversation, since my original response was predicated on what I felt was a surreptitious bashing of the OP based on his decision to record audio, which, although something I personally would never do, is entirely his decision.

It has been a pleasure conversing with you gentlemen on this topic.

Both cases you mention involve recording public officials, specifically of law enforcement. Recording audio of private citizens is an entirely different subject. Federal law is (and has been for some time) very clear in that it is illegal to record audio of private citizens without their consent (when you aren't an active participant in that conversation)unless a court order is obtained by appropriate law enforcement agencies after showing reasonable cause that criminal activity is imminent or on going. If you, as a private citizen, attempted to record say a neighbors phone conversations for whatever reason, you would be in clear cut violation of wiretapping laws. And the current wiretapping laws aren't restricted to wired landline telephone calls but are written to include using ANY electronic device to record ANY oral communication. This is clear cut and I have never seen or heard of any case law stating otherwise. There are many people who have been tried and convicted of these violations so the argument that it hasn't happened doesn't fly. So I'm not quite sure where the confusion is here and while you're more then welcome to disagree, current state and federal laws don't support such arguments. Eavesdropping, One-Two Party Consent, private citizens and Government employees are all clearly defined and although some states may have "archaic" laws, many have been amendment or overturned in recent years to include newer technology but the basic principles remain the same.

And I whole heartedly disagree that anyone was bashing the OP. This thread went on a tangent away from the OP's question, but audio recording is a very serious subject, arguably much more so then video, and given the wording provided, its clear he is unfamiliar with the liability he is opening himself up to.

 

[fenderman]

You and I will simply have to politely agree to disagree on this point; ultimately I think it boils down to the exact interpretation of individual state laws, since "unattended" video and audio from "nanny cams" has been admitted as evidence in trials in the past.

You are coming to dangerous legal conclusions based on improper analogies. In no State can you record audio in a public place unless YOU are a part of the conversation OR an individual who is grants permission. Whether or not the recording device is attended or not is completely irrelevant. If you hide in a room and record a conversion using your cell phone you have violated the law. The nanny cams with audio are admitted into evidence for various reasons. If the person who is being recorded has permission to be in the premises then there has to be another individual who permitted this recording. This can be a child who "grants" permission by way of their guardian. Once again making silly legal arguments and analogizes is akin to visiting WebMD and self diagnosing yourself. Posting false information in this regard is dangerous to the readers here.

 

[bob2701]

You're welcome. But I'm not a pro, I only pretend to be one on this forum. Furthermore, if you're looking to "choose the right cameras" before you've defined your goals and requirements then you've going about this ass backwards; maybe you need another 25 years, eh?

LOL @Q2U, I didn't think he heard you the first time.

 

[Q™]

LOL @Q2U, I didn't think he heard you the first time.

I'd prefer it if we leave that alone and move on to productive discussions, such as the very interesting audio recording consent issues.