2 ms·

I agree, I would fire the customer. That said I was asking OP what privacy laws he thinks were violated.

by DKnoll 8y ago

Steko 8y ago
As an example if it recorded audio (I'd guess not) then recording a private conversation between two mechanics would presumably fail the one party consent standard in Canada. I'm not sure if video only has the same standard but it may.
- DKnoll 8y ago
  It's single party consent, the party recording doesn't have to be present. If at least one of the people present at any time are aware of the recording device they grant consent by choosing to work on the vehicle, the same way you grant consent to recording by walking on the premises of a business with overt cameras. Thanks, this is the discussion I was looking to have. I just have an interest in privacy law, I am not advocating what the person in the article did.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    I don't really think seeing a camera is consent. Or that putting a running camera in a workplace makes you a "party". If I pick up a phone and call a service center, they tell me they are recording the call. Obviously a phone has a microphone, because I am talking into it doesn't mean I consent to being recorded; my default expectation is that I am speaking unrecorded to another human not stored except for the necessities of transmission.
    - DKnoll 8y ago
      In Canada any party on a phone call can record without the consent or awareness of other parties. In the case of calling customer service, the agent you end up speaking to is very likely not the one actually doing the recording, but they are aware of it, thus they fulfill the requirements of single party consent. You are correct that placing a camera and not being present while it records does not make you a party, but if you make it clear (verbally, signage, blinking light from a camera on your windshield) that a camera is recording in your vehicle and they choose to work on it they are a consenting party. The law says that you cannot record where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but that is meant to apply to places like bathrooms, change rooms, saunas and other similar places.
colechristensen 8y ago
Federal and state wiretapping laws, most likely. Sometimes they are rather ambiguous, and states vary. California is apparently one of the most restrictive two party consent jurisdictions. That is basically that everybody has to consent to a conversation being recorded or the act of recording is illegal. I'm pretty sure this would apply to surveillance cameras inside cars while they are being worked on.
- DKnoll 8y ago
  This article is about an incident in Toronto, which is subject to Canadian federal and Ontario provincial law.

I agree, I would fire the customer. That said I was asking OP what privacy laws he thinks were violated.

by DKnoll 8y ago

I agree, I would fire the customer. That said I was asking OP what privacy laws he thinks were violated.

As an example if it recorded audio (I'd guess not) then recording a private conversation between two mechanics would presumably fail the one party consent standard in Canada. I'm not sure if video only has the same standard but it may.

DKnoll 8y ago
It's single party consent, the party recording doesn't have to be present. If at least one of the people present at any time are aware of the recording device they grant consent by choosing to work on the vehicle, the same way you grant consent to recording by walking on the premises of a business with overt cameras. Thanks, this is the discussion I was looking to have. I just have an interest in privacy law, I am not advocating what the person in the article did.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  I don't really think seeing a camera is consent. Or that putting a running camera in a workplace makes you a "party". If I pick up a phone and call a service center, they tell me they are recording the call. Obviously a phone has a microphone, because I am talking into it doesn't mean I consent to being recorded; my default expectation is that I am speaking unrecorded to another human not stored except for the necessities of transmission.
  - DKnoll 8y ago
    In Canada any party on a phone call can record without the consent or awareness of other parties. In the case of calling customer service, the agent you end up speaking to is very likely not the one actually doing the recording, but they are aware of it, thus they fulfill the requirements of single party consent. You are correct that placing a camera and not being present while it records does not make you a party, but if you make it clear (verbally, signage, blinking light from a camera on your windshield) that a camera is recording in your vehicle and they choose to work on it they are a consenting party. The law says that you cannot record where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but that is meant to apply to places like bathrooms, change rooms, saunas and other similar places.

colechristensen 8y ago

Federal and state wiretapping laws, most likely. Sometimes they are rather ambiguous, and states vary. California is apparently one of the most restrictive two party consent jurisdictions. That is basically that everybody has to consent to a conversation being recorded or the act of recording is illegal. I'm pretty sure this would apply to surveillance cameras inside cars while they are being worked on.

DKnoll 8y ago
This article is about an incident in Toronto, which is subject to Canadian federal and Ontario provincial law.