Twelve.
I’ve never seen someone interviewed on 60 Minutes who wasn’t obviously aware they were being interviewed.
Well, I’ll admit I haven’t watched 60 minutes in decades, but here’s an article about 60 minutes sneak interviews.
If what Roderick described here took place in my state (Washington), it would be illegal.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
I work for a state agency and a number of our investigators (safety, fraud, etc.) have to make recordings without sound, because they certainly aren’t going to get the consent of the people they are recording to see what violations they are committing. (As an IT person supporting those investigators, I sometimes have to help them get things configured to ensure that they can record video without sound.)
There is no provision in the law for where the conversation took place. If two random people were on the street having a conversation and you recorded it without their consent, that’s illegal. You don’t have to be tapping a phone or slipping a microphone into their bedroom window.
In Roderick’s case, since there was clearly no consent to record audio, this would be illegal. But again, I’m only speaking for Washington State.
Well then, she probably wouldn’t want her name attached to this whole sordid story so that a future prospective employer googling her would find out that she recorded you without permission and under false pretenses. It would be very unfortunate for a Reddit post or Tweet or something similar was linked to her, and put her in a bad light.
Very unfortunate indeed.
Good one, Cheesesteak.
I think THAT’S a good threat to make. Or to hold in one’s back pocket just in case.
Yes, I think this is the exact kind of law people tend to misunderstand.
“Private” takes on a different meaning in legal contexts. Having a conversation on a public street is not private as far as the law is concerned.
A person can record anything the eyes or ears can see or hear from a public place.
And I think you misunderstand. It is dependent on a number of factors, but no, you can’t just record anything you hear in a conversation if it’s in a public place.
Washington law does make an exception in cases where the person or people communicating are doing so in an environment where they should not be under the expectation of privacy. The courts consider three factors in determining whether a conversation qualifies as private and is therefore protected under the state’s wiretap provisions. Lewis v. Washington, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006).
- The topic and length of communication.
- Where the communication took place and whether a third party did or could have overheard.*
- The actions of the party who did not consent and their relationship with the party who did.
*Washington’s Supreme Court has decided that the presence of a third party typically disqualifies a conversation as private. Washington v. Clark, 916 P.2d 384 (Wash. 1996).
Clearly what you are insisting here is wrong. You are simplifying it far too much. Being in a public place does not automatically make it so that what you are saying can be recorded and it’s fine. It’s not nearly that straight-forward.
I disagree.
Video recording laws by state are generally situational. It’s important to clarify that the Wiretap Act doesn’t apply to video or photo capture. It is legal to record someone in public, as long as they don’t have a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
The Wiretap Act protects communications that the individuals being recorded perceive as private. Whether one perceives a conversation as private largely depends on the context.
Where was the conversation taking place? Was it in private or in public? Suppose you were at a party having a conversation amidst a group of friends openly stating that you swindled your business partner in a deal. If someone happened to record this conversation, it would be admissible as evidence in court if your business partner initiated civil proceedings against you.
And then you post something that supports exactly what I said.
That’s precisely what I said. It’s not simple.
Yes, it would. But if it was a conversation between two people (as in the OP), and one person recorded the other without their consent, that is a completely different situation. Regardless of whether they were in a person’s living room, or standing on a sidewalk on a public street.
One aspect to recording in public is if the conversation can easily be overheard by the person recording. If I hide a recorder in a booth of a restaurant to record what those diners are saying, the recording would be illegal. But if I’m sitting at a random table with the recorder and the people at the booth are talking loud enough that the recorder picks it up, then that would likely be legal. If the recorder is able to record what I can normally hear, then that is generally okay. If I’m using a super sensitive boom mic to pick up a whispered conversation, that would likely be illegal.
I don’t see how any court would find there was an expectation of privacy in the situation the OP described. He was at a public venue at a public event. No court would find in his favor.
It depends, were the two of them in an isolated place in the event where otherwise people wouldn’t have overheard? If not, I’d agree with you that there would be no expectation of privacy. My only objection is to the impression that this is some bright-line rule that once you are out in public, nothing you say can be assumed to be private. As is often the case in the law, it depends.
I would be very pissed as well. In this case, it’s OP’s husband’s niece, start by asking nicely through family. I wouldn’t harp on the dishonesty, just say “I agreed to 1-2 photos, not a video. Please remove the video.” And although I wouldn’t dream of retaliating… sometimes turnabout is fair play.
I’ve told people “I have a stalker” which is kinda true. I said that to a friend’s friend who was snapping photos of everyone saying “I’m going to post it on Instagram” and I made her delete all the photos with me in it right there on the spot. This person was 50something not 20something.