3 ms·

It's interesting that Germany makes a distinction between observing and recording images or video, while the US does not. The US does distinguish (typically in

by Zak 4y ago

It's interesting that Germany makes a distinction between observing and recording images or video, while the US does not. The US does distinguish (typically in state law) between listening and recording. Recording is different from watching/listening. It's reasonably possible to know who is present at any given time, but not possible to know in advance who might hear/see a recording in the future. I do, however think Germany's law goes a bit too far: as I understand it, use of surveillance cameras on private property without warning signs is illegal even if a person would have to be trespassing to be recorded. I do not think trespassers should enjoy a right to privacy with regard to their trespass.

heavyset_go 4y ago
It's not just about trespassers, it's also about anyone who was invited onto the property that's under surveillance. Guests, workers and contractors who are invited onto the property have a right to know if they're being recorded or not.
- Zak 4y ago
  Sure, but they can be informed individually.
  - ls15 4y ago
    Yeah, but how do you prove that everyone was informed? It needs at least to happen in written form and at that point, you can just put up a sign.
nulbyte 4y ago
> US does distinguish (typically in state law) between listening and recording. Recording is different from watching/listening. It's reasonably possible to know who is present at any given time, but not possible to know in advance who might hear/see a recording in the future. I'm not sure how universal is, and it's not always reasonably possible to know who is listening. You can listen from afar. But I would think most states have eavesdropping laws that include overhearing. Here is an example from my state, Kentucky. https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39393 https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id... This law covers both listening and recording.
- Zak 4y ago
  In that law, it's specifically by using a device, presumably one that enables the user to hear things their unaided ears could not. The law doesn't cover eavesdropping by being present and undetected using unaided ears. A similar law could be written to cover viewing using magnified optics; existing laws in the US are usually written in terms of a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is not always clearly defined. I think anything viewable from a public place with an unaided eye would probably not fall under that category.

by Zak 4y ago

heavyset_go 4y ago

It's not just about trespassers, it's also about anyone who was invited onto the property that's under surveillance. Guests, workers and contractors who are invited onto the property have a right to know if they're being recorded or not.

Zak 4y ago
Sure, but they can be informed individually.
- ls15 4y ago
  Yeah, but how do you prove that everyone was informed? It needs at least to happen in written form and at that point, you can just put up a sign.

nulbyte 4y ago

> US does distinguish (typically in state law) between listening and recording. Recording is different from watching/listening. It's reasonably possible to know who is present at any given time, but not possible to know in advance who might hear/see a recording in the future. I'm not sure how universal is, and it's not always reasonably possible to know who is listening. You can listen from afar. But I would think most states have eavesdropping laws that include overhearing. Here is an example from my state, Kentucky. https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39393 https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id... This law covers both listening and recording.

Zak 4y ago
In that law, it's specifically by using a device, presumably one that enables the user to hear things their unaided ears could not. The law doesn't cover eavesdropping by being present and undetected using unaided ears. A similar law could be written to cover viewing using magnified optics; existing laws in the US are usually written in terms of a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is not always clearly defined. I think anything viewable from a public place with an unaided eye would probably not fall under that category.