Warning You Are Being Recorded - Decals/Signs

[greg_mitch]

I see these being placed near the front door on some pictures people post here. Is this just best practice or requirements in some places?

I am thinking I will be catching the mail man, UPS guy, general public, etc.

Should I have the sign up or is just common courtesy?

With the advent of the Ring products and Nest Cams, people are way more accepting of seeing cameras when they walk up to a door, but was curious what people's thoughts are on this topic before I go buy these:

https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance...pID=51ONQuWVYTL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

Thanks.

 

[Fastb]

outside a building, in areas visible to the public, there isn't an expectation of privacy. Recording video of the UPS, FedEx, general public is legal. No sign needed.
Audio is different. Some jurisdictions require dual consent. This can be obtained by posting a sign saying "audio recording in place". If you visitor proceeds past the sign, and comes to your front door, that's construed as "consent".

I think the real reason you see the signs (such as the one at amazon you posted) is that they act as a deterrent.

Fastb

 

[greg_mitch]

I did a few quick google searches. My state is one party consent, so I don't need to ask for audio.

I am still a bit hesitant about advertising I have cameras. If you aren't tech savy you might not even notice them, but when I put up a sign, I might get people asking if I need them due to the bad neighborhood (which it isn't!).

I guess I am trying to make my cameras discrete so don't really want a sign as well.

Do people really think the signs deter anyone?

 

[fenderman]

I did a few quick google searches. My state is one party consent, so I don't need to ask for audio.

That is not correct. You dont need consent IF and only if YOU are a party to the conversation OR one of the parties gives you consent. However, for example if your neighbor couple, a group of Jehovah's witnesses, or your mailman on his cell phone, walks up to your door you are not permitted to record.

 

[greg_mitch]

That is not correct. You dont need consent IF and only if YOU are a party to the conversation OR one of the parties gives you consent. However, for example if your neighbor couple, a group of Jehovah's witnesses, or your mailman on his cell phone, walks up to your door you are not permitted to record.

Can you direct me to any resources on how the consent rule applies to security cameras from your experience. I was reading something very similar to this:

"One Party Consent" means that only the person doing the recording has to give consent and does not have to notify the other party or parties that the conversation is being recorded. "Two Party Consent" means the person recording the conversation must notify all of the other parties that the recording is taking place and they must consent to the recording. Federal Law requires "One Party Consent" for audio recording.

If my system is doing the recording, I am the one party that gives consent. Are you saying that if I am not actively listening, then it isn't me giving the one party consent? Are most people disabling audio? Thanks.

 

[fenderman]

Can you direct me to any resources on how the consent rule applies to security cameras from your experience. I was reading something very similar to this:

"One Party Consent" means that only the person doing the recording has to give consent and does not have to notify the other party or parties that the conversation is being recorded. "Two Party Consent" means the person recording the conversation must notify all of the other parties that the recording is taking place and they must consent to the recording. Federal Law requires "One Party Consent" for audio recording.

If my system is doing the recording, I am the one party that gives consent. Are you saying that if I am not actively listening, then it isn't me giving the one party consent? Are most people disabling audio? Thanks.

Whether or not you are actively listening is irrelevant. The statement you quoted assumes you are a party to the conversation and the others know it. Its simple logic, if the person secretly recording can give consent then there would be no conversation that could not be recorded....
The law is not enforced, in fact you will see many instances where law enforcement uses video with audio to ask the public for help...ring doorbell and the like are still in business...

 

[greg_mitch]

Whether or not you are actively listening is irrelevant. The statement you quoted assumes you are a party to the conversation and the others know it. Its simple logic, if the person secretly recording can give consent then there would be no conversation that could not be recorded....
The law is not enforced, in fact you will see many instances where law enforcement uses video with audio to ask the public for help...ring doorbell and the like are still in business...

Not enforced so not a big deal. Good to know. I think the defining factor is areas where there is no expectation of privacy...at least for video.

 

[fenderman]

Not enforced so not a big deal. Good to know. I think the defining factor is areas where there is no expectation of privacy...at least for video.

The expectation of privacy rules does not apply to audio...

 

[RobertM]

Fenderman, So in a one-party state, if your front door security camera (with microphone) video & audio records a couple individuals on your front porch talking about how they're going to do injury to your home and/or occupants as soon as someone opens the door (or for example, otherwise incriminate themselves by talking about how they just previously committed a crime/violence at a neighbor's home)... then that audio recording is not legally admissible as evidence in a court of law?
Assuming that is true, then if the home owner posts a legible warning sign at eyeball level that reads:
"By occupying this physical space you consent to video and audio recording"
then that sign provides adequate notice to one of the parties involved in the verbal conversation. Would you agree?

 

[RobertM]

Oops - just looked at a Nayr-provided ACLU.org link and read that:
In situations where you are an observer but not a part of the conversation, or in states where all parties to a conversation must consent to taping, the legality of taping will depend on whether the state's prohibition on taping applies only when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So in the situation I proposed in my previous post - it depends if your State determines that individual(s) standing at your front door have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[mat200]

Oops - just looked at a Nayr-provided ACLU.org link and read that:
In situations where you are an observer but not a part of the conversation, or in states where all parties to a conversation must consent to taping, the legality of taping will depend on whether the state's prohibition on taping applies only when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So in the situation I proposed in my previous post - it depends if your State determines that individual(s) standing at your front door have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Thus clear signage can be helpful... and why we see it often.