3 ms·
No expectation of privacy in public and video can be taken. For example, security cameras that also happen to capture audio.
by firesteelrain 1y ago
No expectation of privacy in public and video can be taken. For example, security cameras that also happen to capture audio.
- fragmede 1y agoin which jurisdiction? Just because there's a device that breaks the law doesn't make the law go away.
- firesteelrain 1y agoKatz v. United States (1967) Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011)
- ssl-3 1y agoI don't see how either of those cases apply to regular people making recordings of regular citizens (in public, or not) using a microphone.
- firesteelrain 1y agoI was referring to video with a camera which has a microphone
- ssl-3 1y agoAs was I. But to extend the context: I don't see the relationship of either of those cases to anything being discussed here at all.
- firesteelrain 1y agoDrive thru conversations are not private under the Katz test, so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That makes video or audio recording in that setting lawful. Katz came about because the FBI recorded a gambler outside the booth with the doors closed. Hence we have the Katz test. Heck, you can even record someone making a drive thru order yourself and no one can do anything about it
- ssl-3 1y agoIf the question was about whether a warrant would be required to record a person at a Burger King drive-through, then sure: I'd bite. But that kind of question does not appear to be related to anything in the context of the discussions here on HN. You seem to have presented a red herring.
- firesteelrain 1y agoNot a red herring. The Katz test defines when a conversation is private, and a drive thru order does not meet that standard, so recording there is lawful even when it is done by a private person and not by law enforcement.