Conversation Recording
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
In New York places of business. (just randomly picking here) Old Navy can record audio and video of you in their place of business with a sign on the front door which says "Audio and Video recording on premise"
Or something along those lines anyways. And that resolves the issue, the customer can refuse to enter the store (assuming they can read) or can enter and shop.
It's a matter of informing the other parties, and then they have the choice to continue or not.
Right, that's "all party notification."
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
In New York places of business. (just randomly picking here) Old Navy can record audio and video of you in their place of business with a sign on the front door which says "Audio and Video recording on premise"
Or something along those lines anyways. And that resolves the issue, the customer can refuse to enter the store (assuming they can read) or can enter and shop.
It's a matter of informing the other parties, and then they have the choice to continue or not.
My particular issue is the recording of workers in our house. For various reasons we do not want them to know the cameras are there.
That's the bigger issues, not wanting to notify. As their employer, or potential employer, you are under all party notification laws federally. That includes video, I believe.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
My particular issue is the recording of workers in our house. For various reasons we do not want them to know the cameras are there.
In your personal residence?
What state are you in? It's your house (and not a place of business) so I'd think you'd be allowed to do what you want with it.
They are working there, paid, it's a place of business.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
Why though? What makes them knowing or not knowing that there are more people a factor when they don't have any right to being notified anyway?
What?
Honestly what does mean?
I'm asking.... what does "knowledge of number of people" have to do with the situation? What law mentions a need to tell people how many people are there?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
Why though? What makes them knowing or not knowing that there are more people a factor when they don't have any right to being notified anyway?
What?
Honestly what does mean?
I'm asking.... what does "knowledge of number of people" have to do with the situation? What law mentions a need to tell people how many people are there?
Ah, so this might be along the lines of "announcing call party members". Kind of like saying "Hi Dustin, this is Scott and I have Danielle here on the call with me"
I don't know it it matters legally, but it's a witness to the conversation, recorded or not.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
Things I don't get are...
- What makes one party notification ever okay?
- Why does adding more than two people change anything?
One party notification is OK because a good number states have deemed it legal. Of course it would NOT be OK in the other states.
If two people are conversing, the expectation is that only those two people are conversing. If a third party, unbeknownst to the parties, is intercepting that call, that is illegal unless all parties are notified. Hence why the employer must notify those parties.
Why though? What makes them knowing or not knowing that there are more people a factor when they don't have any right to being notified anyway?
What?
Honestly what does mean?
I'm asking.... what does "knowledge of number of people" have to do with the situation? What law mentions a need to tell people how many people are there?
Ah, so this might be along the lines of "announcing call party members". Kind of like saying "Hi Dustin, this is Scott and I have Danielle here on the call with me"
I don't know it it matters legally, but it's a witness to the conversation, recorded or not.
Right, but if they are a witness, then they can do the recording with their own consent and notifying themselves. So that opens up the door for "anyone can spy and record, by the nature of being a spy." It's basically the "it's okay to spay" law, it that were how it read.
-
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
What state are you in? @scottalanmiller said that this is a place of business, is that true. Or is this your residence and you are hiring someone to come and perform work in your house?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
What state are you in? @scottalanmiller that this is a place of business, is that true. Or is this your residence and you are hiring someone to come and perform work in your house?
My discussion on it was just in general.
My surveillance could be for home or work, both in separate states.
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
What state are you in? @scottalanmiller that this is a place of business, is that true. Or is this your residence and you are hiring someone to come and perform work in your house?
My discussion on it was just in general.
My surveillance could be for home or work, both in separate states.
So you have to talk to attorneys in separate states.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
What state are you in? @scottalanmiller that this is a place of business, is that true. Or is this your residence and you are hiring someone to come and perform work in your house?
My discussion on it was just in general.
My surveillance could be for home or work, both in separate states.
So you have to talk to attorneys in separate states.
Ultimately, yes.
Though in reality, I still stand by my argument. At least on phone recording.
Surveillance I still need to do more research.
-
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
In New York places of business. (just randomly picking here) Old Navy can record audio and video of you in their place of business with a sign on the front door which says "Audio and Video recording on premise"
Or something along those lines anyways. And that resolves the issue, the customer can refuse to enter the store (assuming they can read) or can enter and shop.
It's a matter of informing the other parties, and then they have the choice to continue or not.
My particular issue is the recording of workers in our house. For various reasons we do not want them to know the cameras are there.
I understand why you say that - but at the same time, why not just give them the ability to stop their bad behavior... the reality is that after you tell them, after a few weeks, they'll forget and they'll be recorded any way... so just them, hell make them sign a page recognizing that they have been informed that you are recording all public spaces in the house including bedrooms, hallways, closets, etc.. but specifically not recording bathrooms.
-
From what I've read online (its online, it has to be true. haha), Nanny cams are allowed by law in all 50 states without consent as long as it is recording just video.
-
@brianlittlejohn said in Conversation Recording:
From what I've read online (its online, it has to be true. haha), Nanny cams are allowed by law in all 50 states without consent as long as it is recording just video.
Which is just nuts in case of verbal abuse... Unless they're staring at the nanny cam when talking.
-
@scottalanmiller
do you have a post that specifically shows where in the patriot act law that makes 1 party concent illegal - or perhaps better asked - do you have a post that shows the specifici part in the patriot act where all participates must be notified of recording? -
@Dashrender said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller
do you have a post that specifically shows where in the patriot act law that makes 1 party concent illegal - or perhaps better asked - do you have a post that shows the specifici part in the patriot act where all participates must be notified of recording?I provided it before. It's in the other thread in the OP. It's State of Texas officially stating that that provision of the PA and the 1986 law supersede state laws.
And ANY mention of consent in connection with that post is a red herring. The law is notification. Consent is an unrelated issue.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
What state are you in? @scottalanmiller said that this is a place of business, is that true. Or is this your residence and you are hiring someone to come and perform work in your house?
Does it matter? The law in question is federal. How do define a place of business differently from where people are employed to work?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@DustinB3403 said in Conversation Recording:
@BRRABill said in Conversation Recording:
I guess the final answer is really ... talk to a lawyer.
We need more lawyers here on ML!
What state are you in? @scottalanmiller said that this is a place of business, is that true. Or is this your residence and you are hiring someone to come and perform work in your house?
Does it matter? The law in question is federal. How do define a place of business differently from where people are employed to work?
I'm asking because each state may have laws that are more strict than the next state.
So it very much matters.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Conversation Recording:
@Dashrender said in Conversation Recording:
@scottalanmiller
do you have a post that specifically shows where in the patriot act law that makes 1 party concent illegal - or perhaps better asked - do you have a post that shows the specifici part in the patriot act where all participates must be notified of recording?I provided it before. It's in the other thread in the OP. It's State of Texas officially stating that that provision of the PA and the 1986 law supersede state laws.
And ANY mention of consent in connection with that post is a red herring. The law is notification. Consent is an unrelated issue.
yeah we have two words that are being used interchangably and that is allowing Scott to rant on the conversation more - consent vs notification.
and now Scott is saying that because (and I agree) consent and notify are two completely different things... you have to do everything you are able to comply with the laws regarding each point.
So - in Texas, the law is (and waiting for confirmation on this) that you require 1 side consent
OK fine me as one party concent.Then you also have a federal law that says - you MUST notify ALL parties on the line
but wait, I didn't tell everyone that we were recording, uh.. so I guess I can't record. -
So according to the laws - it looks like at bare minimum whomever is recording must inform all parties that they are being recorded... wither or not explicit consent is needed is handled at the state level.
Though I think that most of us would agree, that once a notification of a recording is on file (i.e. on the recording) that your continued participation in the conversation is your consent. but I'm no lawyer, I could be wrong.
