6 ms·

>According to the city of Bellevue, detectives used hidden cameras to document elements of the crime of patronizing a prostitute. “Unfortunately, audio conversa

>According to the city of Bellevue, detectives used hidden cameras to document elements of the crime of patronizing a prostitute. “Unfortunately, audio conversations were unintentionally captured between the suspect and the undercover officers in 61 of the 110 cases,” the city wrote in a news release. State law requires two-party consent to record audio conversations. So it's legal to do surveillance by video recorder but not audio recorder? I don't know what to think about that.

danso 9y ago
FWIW, the majority of states allow for one-party consent audio recording -- i.e. one person secretly taping a conversation without telling the others: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2011/03/broken_record_laws.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2011/0... Not sure what the history of case law regarding audio vs video recording, but it seems video recording is almost always legal in public areas (i.e. not a dressing room). Video being subject to a two-party consent rule, or even one -party consent, would make most video surveillance illegal, such as security cameras outside of stores. https://lifehacker.com/what-you-need-to-know-when-recording-your-enemies-1795226719 https://lifehacker.com/what-you-need-to-know-when-recording-...
- thatcat 9y ago
  >Video being subject to a two-party consent rule, or even one -party consent, would make most video surveillance illegal, such as security cameras outside of stores Security cameras are often required to be accompanied by signs stating as such when you are on private property. On public property such as the street there is no protection.
- eesmith 9y ago
  "security cameras outside of stores" would be in public areas, yes? The Lifehacker link you pointed to says "Generally speaking, you have the right to record video in all public spaces without need of consent." Now for the fun part - it can be possible to extract audio from video, by careful processing of the small motions the sound induced in objects in the frame. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8 . High-speed camera is best, but at the end they show how a regular consumer-level camera can also be used.
  - danso 9y ago
    Right, that's what I meant. If video were subject to 2-party consent rules like audio, many public security cameras (such as those that overwatch a parking lot) might be illegal, particularly without signage. With audio, 2-party consent makes it illegal to record audio anywhere, including public places, without informing the other party.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      I don't think that's a correct interpretation of 2-party audio recording laws, and therefore don't think the parallelism to video recording applies. The relevant Washington law for audio recordings is at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 . It applies to: > Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation. A conversation outside, in a public area, which can be overheard by others, is not a private conversation, so outside the scope of this law. I think. Looking at https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-R... , the entry for Illinois says it's a two-party (rather, all-party) state, but adds that after an earlier version was found unconstitutional, "On December 30, 2014, the statute was amended to permit recording of conversations in public places, such as in courtrooms, where no person reasonably would expect it to be private." That looks to me like there is no necessary conflict between being a two-party state and allowing audio recording of public conversations without consent of any party.
      - danso 9y ago
        What you cited -- Private conversation, by any device electronic -- makes no mention of private vs. public when it comes to areas. IANAL but that would mean that "private conversation" is open to interpretation and could very well include conversations that occur in public places. I can't speak to Washington state specifically, but it seems successful lawsuits and charges have been brought against people in 2-party consent states who have recorded conversations that took place in public areas: - Pennsylvania high school student was criminally charged for secretly taping bullying in his classroom: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/14/crime-for-high-school-student-to-secretly-audio-record-his-tormentors-in-the-classroom/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... - Project Veritas is facing a lawsuit for a Florida sting that took place at a teacher conference: https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/a-teacher-is-suing-breitbart-and-project-veritas-for https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/a-teacher-is-suing-br... - In MA, which is 2-party-consent, there appears to be an exception for recording of public officials in public areas: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2015/04/24/how-a-boston-case-won-you-the-right-to-record-police https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2015/04/24/how-a-bost...

danso 9y ago

FWIW, the majority of states allow for one-party consent audio recording -- i.e. one person secretly taping a conversation without telling the others: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2011/03/broken_record_laws.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2011/0... Not sure what the history of case law regarding audio vs video recording, but it seems video recording is almost always legal in public areas (i.e. not a dressing room). Video being subject to a two-party consent rule, or even one -party consent, would make most video surveillance illegal, such as security cameras outside of stores. https://lifehacker.com/what-you-need-to-know-when-recording-your-enemies-1795226719 https://lifehacker.com/what-you-need-to-know-when-recording-...

thatcat 9y ago
>Video being subject to a two-party consent rule, or even one -party consent, would make most video surveillance illegal, such as security cameras outside of stores Security cameras are often required to be accompanied by signs stating as such when you are on private property. On public property such as the street there is no protection.
eesmith 9y ago
"security cameras outside of stores" would be in public areas, yes? The Lifehacker link you pointed to says "Generally speaking, you have the right to record video in all public spaces without need of consent." Now for the fun part - it can be possible to extract audio from video, by careful processing of the small motions the sound induced in objects in the frame. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8 . High-speed camera is best, but at the end they show how a regular consumer-level camera can also be used.
- danso 9y ago
  Right, that's what I meant. If video were subject to 2-party consent rules like audio, many public security cameras (such as those that overwatch a parking lot) might be illegal, particularly without signage. With audio, 2-party consent makes it illegal to record audio anywhere, including public places, without informing the other party.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I don't think that's a correct interpretation of 2-party audio recording laws, and therefore don't think the parallelism to video recording applies. The relevant Washington law for audio recordings is at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 . It applies to: > Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation. A conversation outside, in a public area, which can be overheard by others, is not a private conversation, so outside the scope of this law. I think. Looking at https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-R... , the entry for Illinois says it's a two-party (rather, all-party) state, but adds that after an earlier version was found unconstitutional, "On December 30, 2014, the statute was amended to permit recording of conversations in public places, such as in courtrooms, where no person reasonably would expect it to be private." That looks to me like there is no necessary conflict between being a two-party state and allowing audio recording of public conversations without consent of any party.
    - danso 9y ago
      What you cited -- Private conversation, by any device electronic -- makes no mention of private vs. public when it comes to areas. IANAL but that would mean that "private conversation" is open to interpretation and could very well include conversations that occur in public places. I can't speak to Washington state specifically, but it seems successful lawsuits and charges have been brought against people in 2-party consent states who have recorded conversations that took place in public areas: - Pennsylvania high school student was criminally charged for secretly taping bullying in his classroom: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/14/crime-for-high-school-student-to-secretly-audio-record-his-tormentors-in-the-classroom/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... - Project Veritas is facing a lawsuit for a Florida sting that took place at a teacher conference: https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/a-teacher-is-suing-breitbart-and-project-veritas-for https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/a-teacher-is-suing-br... - In MA, which is 2-party-consent, there appears to be an exception for recording of public officials in public areas: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2015/04/24/how-a-boston-case-won-you-the-right-to-record-police https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2015/04/24/how-a-bost...