6 ms·

California is a "two party" state for audio/video recordings. He could get in trouble for posting these recordings made without the consent of all parties. And

by hfinney 16y ago

California is a "two party" state for audio/video recordings. He could get in trouble for posting these recordings made without the consent of all parties. And the records would not be admissible in court if he did get sued.

jarin 16y ago
Doesn't the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule apply in this case?
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  This has been a huge brouhaha lately. Most rational people would agree that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, but the courts haven't actually ruled that way. See this guy's story for more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ&feature=playe...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- poet 16y ago
  I'm not sure what rule or law you are referring do, but I'm guessing no. Illinois is a "two party" state as well and you cannot record audio of anyone with their consent, including a public official acting in a public capacity. However (at least in Illinois) this law does not apply to video. It is a relic from some wiretapping legislation that is being inappropriately applied to citizens attempting to document their experiences with public officials.
  - Lewisham 16y ago
    "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is refers to whether you are performing something in public or not. I can take a video of you standing in Main Street shouting about Hell opening up and devouring us all, because you don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." However, Wikipedia [1] implies this is not civil, but in regards to the government's view of privacy to you, not yours to the government, and is highly unlikely to supersede areas where filming is expressly forbidden, and which is indicated to you when entering that area. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priva...
    - poet 16y ago
      That's not true for police officers in two party notification states; I'm not sure whether this applies to private citizens or not. In Illinois and other two party notification states, you can't record audio of police officers in public places [1]. Video is fine, but since all video cameras record audio, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People get arrested all the time in two party notification states for video taping law enforcement and it's because of the audio function of their device. [1] http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez.pdf http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez....
dotBen 16y ago
You're not allowed to film the TSA security check point at all. If TSA wants to take a hard line against the people opt-ing out of the back-scatter checks, then with these videos they can probably make a 'good' case to pursue the civil charges + $10k fine to make an example out of him. EDIT: you are not allowed to film at TSA check points because of airport policy, not because the TSA policy. for San Diego see: http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Code%207.14%20Filming.pdf http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod... I'm not aware of any major airport that allows filming in screening areas, which is the point I'm trying to make.
- chacha102 16y ago
  Not only does the TSA website specifically state otherwise, there is no example to be made out of him because he didn't do anything wrong.
  - dotBen 16y ago
    The TSA website states what exactly? If you enter the screening area you HAVE to comply and be screened based on what the TSA demands, with the only allowance being you can opt-out of metal detectors/back-scatter and be hand-searched. If you don't comply you can be fined, see section C of: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individuals_7-15-2004.pdf http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individu... (refusing to be searched violates a number of those provisions which adds up to $10k) And you're not allowed to record in TSA sterile areas, there are signs at airports that say so. I'm not saying I agree with the law (note I wrote 'good' case above), but your point that the TSA website says otherwise isn't true, and it's a shame I've been downvoted for it. Perhaps you'd like to edit your comment with the url on tsa.gov you are referring to? The whole point of what I was saying, which you missed, is that if the TSA wants to make this case into an example case to set a hard line against those who don't want to do back-scatter, those videos are going to be damaging to him.
    - chacha102 16y ago
      The TSA website states that you are allowed to videotape the security check points. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm
chacha102 16y ago
The audio/video recordings are only protect if the conversation taking placed is viewed as private. It is perfectly fine to record audio/video of something in a public place, especially if it is obvious you are recording it. This is why CCTV and TV camera crews don't have to get your permission to video tape you. See this TSA webpage: TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm After that paragraph it does state that certain local laws may prohibit you from taping it, my above point about privacy comes into play here.
- dotBen 16y ago
  San Diego says you can't film anywhere in the airport, and goes on to make specific points on xray/security areas: http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Code%207.14%20Filming.pdf http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod... Which makes trying to protect your civil rights during a pat-down even harder.

by hfinney 16y ago

jarin 16y ago

Doesn't the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule apply in this case?

steveklabnik 16y ago
This has been a huge brouhaha lately. Most rational people would agree that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, but the courts haven't actually ruled that way. See this guy's story for more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ&feature=playe...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
poet 16y ago
I'm not sure what rule or law you are referring do, but I'm guessing no. Illinois is a "two party" state as well and you cannot record audio of anyone with their consent, including a public official acting in a public capacity. However (at least in Illinois) this law does not apply to video. It is a relic from some wiretapping legislation that is being inappropriately applied to citizens attempting to document their experiences with public officials.
- Lewisham 16y ago
  "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is refers to whether you are performing something in public or not. I can take a video of you standing in Main Street shouting about Hell opening up and devouring us all, because you don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." However, Wikipedia [1] implies this is not civil, but in regards to the government's view of privacy to you, not yours to the government, and is highly unlikely to supersede areas where filming is expressly forbidden, and which is indicated to you when entering that area. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priva...
  - poet 16y ago
    That's not true for police officers in two party notification states; I'm not sure whether this applies to private citizens or not. In Illinois and other two party notification states, you can't record audio of police officers in public places [1]. Video is fine, but since all video cameras record audio, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People get arrested all the time in two party notification states for video taping law enforcement and it's because of the audio function of their device. [1] http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez.pdf http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez....

dotBen 16y ago

You're not allowed to film the TSA security check point at all. If TSA wants to take a hard line against the people opt-ing out of the back-scatter checks, then with these videos they can probably make a 'good' case to pursue the civil charges + $10k fine to make an example out of him. EDIT: you are not allowed to film at TSA check points because of airport policy, not because the TSA policy. for San Diego see: http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Code%207.14%20Filming.pdf http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod... I'm not aware of any major airport that allows filming in screening areas, which is the point I'm trying to make.

chacha102 16y ago
Not only does the TSA website specifically state otherwise, there is no example to be made out of him because he didn't do anything wrong.
- dotBen 16y ago
  The TSA website states what exactly? If you enter the screening area you HAVE to comply and be screened based on what the TSA demands, with the only allowance being you can opt-out of metal detectors/back-scatter and be hand-searched. If you don't comply you can be fined, see section C of: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individuals_7-15-2004.pdf http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individu... (refusing to be searched violates a number of those provisions which adds up to $10k) And you're not allowed to record in TSA sterile areas, there are signs at airports that say so. I'm not saying I agree with the law (note I wrote 'good' case above), but your point that the TSA website says otherwise isn't true, and it's a shame I've been downvoted for it. Perhaps you'd like to edit your comment with the url on tsa.gov you are referring to? The whole point of what I was saying, which you missed, is that if the TSA wants to make this case into an example case to set a hard line against those who don't want to do back-scatter, those videos are going to be damaging to him.
  - chacha102 16y ago
    The TSA website states that you are allowed to videotape the security check points. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm

chacha102 16y ago

The audio/video recordings are only protect if the conversation taking placed is viewed as private. It is perfectly fine to record audio/video of something in a public place, especially if it is obvious you are recording it. This is why CCTV and TV camera crews don't have to get your permission to video tape you. See this TSA webpage: TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm After that paragraph it does state that certain local laws may prohibit you from taping it, my above point about privacy comes into play here.

dotBen 16y ago
San Diego says you can't film anywhere in the airport, and goes on to make specific points on xray/security areas: http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Code%207.14%20Filming.pdf http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod... Which makes trying to protect your civil rights during a pat-down even harder.