3 ms·

The only thing keeping me from using this is that video normally includes audio (and,indeed, it's somewhat important for context), but I'm not sure whether Cali

by gknoy 13y ago

The only thing keeping me from using this is that video normally includes audio (and,indeed, it's somewhat important for context), but I'm not sure whether California's wiretapping laws (or some other?) would get me in hot water if I recorded someone else's conversation. I'm pretty sure this is a both-sides-must-consent state for audio recording, and I'd not want to have to go to court to claim that things said in public (e.g., when an officer of the law is detaining you, or someone else) aren't private.

tomkarlo 13y ago
If it's in a public place where there's no particular expectation of privacy - in particular, if you are not party to the conversation but can clearly hear it and are visible to the parties talking - it doesn't seem like it would run afoul of recording laws. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law
- cmsmith 13y ago
  Note that this is the same justification the authorities use for actions like warrantless GPS tracking of cars or recording of phone call meta-data. That you have no expectation of privacy about where your car moves because someone could just follow you around. When dashcam videos are all instantly uploaded to youtube, and you can run license-plate recognition on the entire database to track someones's car around, then we might start getting concerned. And while I care a little about the FBI's ability to constantly track my car for reasons of principle, my concerns get a lot more practical when my boss is tracking my car to make sure I'm really sick or not going on job interviews.
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    I don't disagree that it's potentially a problem, I'm just saying that as someone recording in a public place you're unlikely to be running afoul of wiretap laws. We should be far less concerned about personal cameras (wearable and/or phones) than fixed security cameras, anyway. We're probably on a fixed CCTV 100X as often as we're being recorded by personally-carried cameras. Worry about Glass and other such devices is just a red herring.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  While that does make sense, there was a period of time over the last few years where people were getting charged with violating wiretapping laws in two-party consent states for recording police, who did not consent: http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/singlepage http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/sin... That said, my understanding (IANAL) is that "ACLU vs. Alvarez" upheld that, in legal terms, this is bullshit: http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Alvarez_ruling.pdf http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Alvarez_ru...
spiritplumber 13y ago
Get RobotsAnywhere from us ( mkb@robots-everywhere.com ) it doesn't have audio and saves single frames for that reason, it's also optimized for low bandwidth. And you can drive a robot with it.

by gknoy 13y ago

tomkarlo 13y ago

If it's in a public place where there's no particular expectation of privacy - in particular, if you are not party to the conversation but can clearly hear it and are visible to the parties talking - it doesn't seem like it would run afoul of recording laws. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

cmsmith 13y ago
Note that this is the same justification the authorities use for actions like warrantless GPS tracking of cars or recording of phone call meta-data. That you have no expectation of privacy about where your car moves because someone could just follow you around. When dashcam videos are all instantly uploaded to youtube, and you can run license-plate recognition on the entire database to track someones's car around, then we might start getting concerned. And while I care a little about the FBI's ability to constantly track my car for reasons of principle, my concerns get a lot more practical when my boss is tracking my car to make sure I'm really sick or not going on job interviews.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  I don't disagree that it's potentially a problem, I'm just saying that as someone recording in a public place you're unlikely to be running afoul of wiretap laws. We should be far less concerned about personal cameras (wearable and/or phones) than fixed security cameras, anyway. We're probably on a fixed CCTV 100X as often as we're being recorded by personally-carried cameras. Worry about Glass and other such devices is just a red herring.
steveklabnik 13y ago
While that does make sense, there was a period of time over the last few years where people were getting charged with violating wiretapping laws in two-party consent states for recording police, who did not consent: http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/singlepage http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/sin... That said, my understanding (IANAL) is that "ACLU vs. Alvarez" upheld that, in legal terms, this is bullshit: http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Alvarez_ruling.pdf http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Alvarez_ru...

spiritplumber 13y ago

Get RobotsAnywhere from us ( mkb@robots-everywhere.com ) it doesn't have audio and saves single frames for that reason, it's also optimized for low bandwidth. And you can drive a robot with it.