3 ms·

See "Intentionally" A dash cam has the several prerogatives mentioned above. The court case would be interesting; especially if a government entity argued no

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)