3 ms·

With the way wiretapping laws work and the bus operator not being a party in any of the conversations they surveil, I wonder if it's legal to be recording peopl

With the way wiretapping laws work and the bus operator not being a party in any of the conversations they surveil, I wonder if it's legal to be recording peoples' voices here.

MisterSandman 4y ago
Everything is legal if you're the one making laws.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ldoughty 4y ago
> With the way wiretapping laws work These laws vary wildly by state... And posting notices in many states work to avoid these issues. So are they legal? Mostly. Yes. But depends where you live and what steps are taken to inform the riders ... But they likely would not record without lawyers saying they are safe to do so.
d1sxeyes 4y ago
I think that public transport would count as a public place. My understanding is that wiretap laws and laws on recording focus primarily on private conversations. In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685 https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful). California is a bit more complex—Penal Code 632 talks only about the confidentiality of the discussion. It would be possible to have a confidential discussion in a public place, however, 632 c) specifically excludes circumstances 'in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded'. It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate.
- tarakat 4y ago
  > In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685 https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful). It is absolutely insane that not assuming a computerized private investigator is following your every step and listening to your every word as soon as you step through your front door is considered 'unreasonable'. > It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate. It's even more insane that a simple "conversations may be recorded" sticker is all it takes to nullify the 4th Amendment in public.
  - d1sxeyes 4y ago
    I get what you're saying, but I keep trying to bend my head around it and my thoughts end up going down one of two separate tracks here and I end up not reaching a conclusion: 1. The bus is a public space - in which case, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public (which is well established), and therefore recording should be both legal and protected under the First Amendment. 2. The bus is a private space open to the public - in which case, the owner or the operator of the private space should have the right to record on his/her/their property. Honestly though, whatever the legal arguments, it FEELS wrong.
    - tarakat 4y ago
      1. You're using "no privacy" to mean both "overheard by the grandma in the next row" and "recorded by a centralized mass surveillance system to be analyzed and correlated with the millions of other data points it has on your and your social circle, wholly subservient to the ever-changing will of the state". So are the courts. By some twisted logic, they concluded that because you can't expect that a random passer-by hears you, you have no reasonable expectation that everywhere in public isn't infested with microphones and cameras uploading everything to intelligence agencies or corporate headquarters. 2. We should be careful, as ever more spaces are becoming "private, open to the public". Perhaps most notably the parks in Wall Street. Soon we may have to travel out of city bounds for any meaningful privacy, if that isn't already the case.

With the way wiretapping laws work and the bus operator not being a party in any of the conversations they surveil, I wonder if it's legal to be recording peoples' voices here.

MisterSandman 4y ago

Everything is legal if you're the one making laws.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ldoughty 4y ago

> With the way wiretapping laws work These laws vary wildly by state... And posting notices in many states work to avoid these issues. So are they legal? Mostly. Yes. But depends where you live and what steps are taken to inform the riders ... But they likely would not record without lawyers saying they are safe to do so.

d1sxeyes 4y ago

I think that public transport would count as a public place. My understanding is that wiretap laws and laws on recording focus primarily on private conversations. In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685 https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful). California is a bit more complex—Penal Code 632 talks only about the confidentiality of the discussion. It would be possible to have a confidential discussion in a public place, however, 632 c) specifically excludes circumstances 'in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded'. It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate.

tarakat 4y ago
> In Baltimore, wiretap laws only apply where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' (https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685 https://cite.case.law/a3d/197/27/#p685) per Fourth Amendment standards (which would suggest that any recordings made in a public place would be lawful). It is absolutely insane that not assuming a computerized private investigator is following your every step and listening to your every word as soon as you step through your front door is considered 'unreasonable'. > It's therefore likely that a simple sign saying 'recording in progress' or something similar would be adequate. It's even more insane that a simple "conversations may be recorded" sticker is all it takes to nullify the 4th Amendment in public.
- d1sxeyes 4y ago
  I get what you're saying, but I keep trying to bend my head around it and my thoughts end up going down one of two separate tracks here and I end up not reaching a conclusion: 1. The bus is a public space - in which case, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public (which is well established), and therefore recording should be both legal and protected under the First Amendment. 2. The bus is a private space open to the public - in which case, the owner or the operator of the private space should have the right to record on his/her/their property. Honestly though, whatever the legal arguments, it FEELS wrong.
  - tarakat 4y ago
    1. You're using "no privacy" to mean both "overheard by the grandma in the next row" and "recorded by a centralized mass surveillance system to be analyzed and correlated with the millions of other data points it has on your and your social circle, wholly subservient to the ever-changing will of the state". So are the courts. By some twisted logic, they concluded that because you can't expect that a random passer-by hears you, you have no reasonable expectation that everywhere in public isn't infested with microphones and cameras uploading everything to intelligence agencies or corporate headquarters. 2. We should be careful, as ever more spaces are becoming "private, open to the public". Perhaps most notably the parks in Wall Street. Soon we may have to travel out of city bounds for any meaningful privacy, if that isn't already the case.