4 ms·

Out of curiosity if I wanted to place microphones in random public places and record could I? Isn't it legal to take someones photo in public? So could I also p

Out of curiosity if I wanted to place microphones in random public places and record could I? Isn't it legal to take someones photo in public? So could I also place a camera where I'd like and record people?

zerooneinfinity 11y ago
I suppose I could be convicted of littering...
herbig 11y ago
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/24/8652925/freelance-spies-nsa-recording-conversations-nyc http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/24/8652925/freelance-spies-ns...
tghw 11y ago
While it's legal to take someone's photo in public, because they don't have an expectation of privacy, it's generally not legal to record audio without their knowledge. It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed. These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Hmm... how does that play with video recording? We argue that it is fine to take video in public because of no expectation of privacy, but video implies an audio track too.
  - pauloday 11y ago
    It applies to video recordings. Most cctv cameras don't record audio for this reason.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      Could you, or anyone, cite the USC on this one - that video images only are allowed in public spaces and/or that audio recording is specifically not allowed? Just curious what the workarounds are really. If the wiretap style "one party" rules were applied then it seems you could just make sure that you get your own audio on there too; or with audiovisual recording you could sit in the shot somewhere and record people so long as you also captured your own voice. It would seem intent primarily to record others (as opposed to it being incidental to the recording you made) would be close to impossible to prove under such circumstances.
    - DrScump 11y ago
      Does that vary by state? Yesterday's Bay Area news reports about the suspect beaten after a chase had a private surveillance video recording with audio, made public.
- DrScump 11y ago
  almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. Doesn't that apply to wiretap laws (e.g. phone recordings, like the Monica Lewinsky case) rather than open-air conversation? For example, I could see how a hack activating their phone microphones and listening that way would be illegal, but open-air conversation?
  - LinuxBender 11y ago
    Yes, that applies to wiretap laws. Everyone (varies with state as mentioned) has to be informed and accept that they are being recorded for the call to be admissible as evidence in a court of law. Without that permission, it will be discarded. I should add; if this were not the case, then manufactures of modern gadgets would be much less likely to have active monitoring of your microphone, for fear of how that action could be interpreted in court. Siri, what are your thoughts on this?
comrh 11y ago
Depends on the state. Most give a lot of freedom to videotaping people in public spaces but audio is usually stricter. In PA for example, it is illegal.
declan 11y ago
The FBI's apparent courthouse or near-courthouse tapping took place in California. If you placed microphones in random public places in CA, the question would be whether there's an expectation of privacy in a conversation that took place in or near those places. If someone does have an expectation of privacy in public (which does not necessarily seem clear to me), you would be engaging in unlawful surveillance. Whispered conversations in public may be protected. The language used by CA law is: "circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr... In CA, video recording laws are more liberal. That's why you see surveillance cameras all over the place in cities (and increasingly in residential suburban or rural neighborhoods as well).

zerooneinfinity 11y ago

I suppose I could be convicted of littering...

herbig 11y ago

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/24/8652925/freelance-spies-nsa-recording-conversations-nyc http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/24/8652925/freelance-spies-ns...

tghw 11y ago

While it's legal to take someone's photo in public, because they don't have an expectation of privacy, it's generally not legal to record audio without their knowledge. It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed. These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.

sliverstorm 11y ago
Hmm... how does that play with video recording? We argue that it is fine to take video in public because of no expectation of privacy, but video implies an audio track too.
- pauloday 11y ago
  It applies to video recordings. Most cctv cameras don't record audio for this reason.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Could you, or anyone, cite the USC on this one - that video images only are allowed in public spaces and/or that audio recording is specifically not allowed? Just curious what the workarounds are really. If the wiretap style "one party" rules were applied then it seems you could just make sure that you get your own audio on there too; or with audiovisual recording you could sit in the shot somewhere and record people so long as you also captured your own voice. It would seem intent primarily to record others (as opposed to it being incidental to the recording you made) would be close to impossible to prove under such circumstances.
  - DrScump 11y ago
    Does that vary by state? Yesterday's Bay Area news reports about the suspect beaten after a chase had a private surveillance video recording with audio, made public.
DrScump 11y ago
almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. Doesn't that apply to wiretap laws (e.g. phone recordings, like the Monica Lewinsky case) rather than open-air conversation? For example, I could see how a hack activating their phone microphones and listening that way would be illegal, but open-air conversation?
- LinuxBender 11y ago
  Yes, that applies to wiretap laws. Everyone (varies with state as mentioned) has to be informed and accept that they are being recorded for the call to be admissible as evidence in a court of law. Without that permission, it will be discarded. I should add; if this were not the case, then manufactures of modern gadgets would be much less likely to have active monitoring of your microphone, for fear of how that action could be interpreted in court. Siri, what are your thoughts on this?

comrh 11y ago

Depends on the state. Most give a lot of freedom to videotaping people in public spaces but audio is usually stricter. In PA for example, it is illegal.

declan 11y ago

The FBI's apparent courthouse or near-courthouse tapping took place in California. If you placed microphones in random public places in CA, the question would be whether there's an expectation of privacy in a conversation that took place in or near those places. If someone does have an expectation of privacy in public (which does not necessarily seem clear to me), you would be engaging in unlawful surveillance. Whispered conversations in public may be protected. The language used by CA law is: "circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr... In CA, video recording laws are more liberal. That's why you see surveillance cameras all over the place in cities (and increasingly in residential suburban or rural neighborhoods as well).