5 ms·

"You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one" This varies by jurisdiction. "968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or o

"You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one" This varies by jurisdiction. "968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited." ... "whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section is guilty of a Class H felony" https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/31 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/968/31

smileysteve 10y ago
See "Intentionally" A dash cam has the several prerogatives mentioned above. The court case would be interesting; especially if a government entity argued no expectation of privacy and no intentionality in the recording.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  "See "Intentionally"" Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought a dash cam would be intentional, but I guess you could forget it was on. Now that I read that statute a bit closer, I see it is about the interception of communications. I really don't know what interception of oral communication is? I wonder if I am reading the right statute, lol. "The court case would be interesting" Yes indeed. Edit: Here is some more relevant info, if you are in Wisconsin and want to know more; https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50 http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-whether-recording-is-allowed/ http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-...
  - smileysteve 10y ago
    > in a place that a reasonable person would consider private or in a manner which is actionable for trespass. It would be hard to prove that a reasonable person would consider a ride share private. - You know the driver can hear you - Not your vehicle - Others have recently ridden in it - In some cases, you're sharing with another unknown party (Pool/Line)

5 ms·

"You probably shouldn't, and most certainly don't legally have one" This varies by jurisdiction. "968.31 Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or o

by ahartman00 10y ago

smileysteve 10y ago
See "Intentionally" A dash cam has the several prerogatives mentioned above. The court case would be interesting; especially if a government entity argued no expectation of privacy and no intentionality in the recording.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  "See "Intentionally"" Hmmm, interesting. I would have thought a dash cam would be intentional, but I guess you could forget it was on. Now that I read that statute a bit closer, I see it is about the interception of communications. I really don't know what interception of oral communication is? I wonder if I am reading the right statute, lol. "The court case would be interesting" Yes indeed. Edit: Here is some more relevant info, if you are in Wisconsin and want to know more; https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/995/50 http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-whether-recording-is-allowed/ http://wislawjournal.com/2010/06/21/commentary-laws-vary-on-...
  - smileysteve 10y ago
    > in a place that a reasonable person would consider private or in a manner which is actionable for trespass. It would be hard to prove that a reasonable person would consider a ride share private. - You know the driver can hear you - Not your vehicle - Others have recently ridden in it - In some cases, you're sharing with another unknown party (Pool/Line)