# Drivers with interior cameras but don't disclose them



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


----------



## Seahawk3 (Oct 5, 2016)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


If you don't do anything wrong then nothing to worry about. It's a private vehicle your getting in no different then a house. If you don't want to be recorded don't leave your residence. In today's age you just have to assume your always being recorded


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. Who knows if they pleasure themselves in private with the secretly captured footage content of the female/male passengers depending on their sexual orientation. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


You think disclosing the camera would stop me?

I don't get this thread.


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

" Ahh yea baby... pick that nose and wipe it on my seats. Give me backseat directions you bossy little milf. Tell me you'll tip me in the app... ahhhhh!!"

This is one of the silliest complaints I've ever read on here. Worry about the guys, y'know, actually raping, stalking and hawking Amway on their riders.


----------



## Solid 5 (Aug 24, 2018)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


In the US, disclosure depends on the state...........


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

See and I would rather tell my pax that they've been recorded after they try to pull some crap and that I'll send it in and have their account closed if they attempt to lie or retaliate. I don't need a cam to be creepy, by the way, tell me what you are wearing right now.


----------



## Solid 5 (Aug 24, 2018)

Disgusted Driver said:


> See and I would rather tell my pax that they've been recorded after they try to pull some crap and that I'll send it in and have their account closed if they attempt to lie or retaliate. I don't need a cam to be creepy, by the way, tell me what you are wearing right now.


You have to disclose you are recording the ride....either verbally or somewhere posted clearly in pax view.

They can ask you to turn the camera off, at which time....I am quite sure.....you legally can end the ride in a safe location.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

AveragePerson said:


> There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


The need for cameras are about the weird paxholes sitting in the back seat who make drivers uncomfortable. The positioning of all my cameras recording all angles of my vehicle provides all the necessary and obvious disclosures to let paxholes know they are being recorded inside and outside of my vehicle. If they don't like it, they can get out and walk.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

AveragePerson said:


> Disclosure should be mandatory.


 Private operator means no mandatory declaration required. It's similar to being in a 7-11. Your best move to change anything is to address it with your state legislators.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

I agree, I hate it when I break into someone's house or shoplift and they dont disclose that its been recorded on video


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> I agree, I hate it when I break into someone's house or shoplift and they dont disclose that its been recorded on video


Or worse yet....
When you break into someone's house and they record you..... how dare they


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

I have a sign in my car that says they being recorded -- and they're not. 
There is this little tiny hole in my rear view mirror, with a small led light next to it. It dims the mirror when there's brights back there. If asked I tell them that is the camera.
Had a guy get in once. About two minutes into the ride he says "So there's a camera in here? Where is it?" I pointed to my mirror and explained that it sends recordings right to the cloud so that they can't be erased by bad guys, and the cops can always find it. He says "So you have to have a sign telling people its here?" I replied in the affirmative. He says, "So, if I don't want to be recorded you have to turn it off." 
"Nope," says I, "I have to let you out of the car. It never gets turned off."
Few seconds go by and I ask, "Do you want out?"
He says, "You'd let me out on the freeway?"
I say, "You're a grown man, you make your own decisions. And, I'm not a kidnapper. I will let you out where you want to get out. Do you want out?"
All he said was 'no'.
It was a quiet ride the rest of the way.


----------



## Merc7186 (Jul 8, 2017)

Has dash cam...

Does Not Disclose...


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Solid 5 said:


> You have to disclose you are recording the ride....either verbally or somewhere posted clearly in pax view.





Dammit Mazzacane said:


> Private operator means no mandatory declaration required. It's similar to being in a 7-11. Your best move to change anything is to address it with your state legislators.


You're both wrong.



Solid 5 said:


> In the US, disclosure depends on the state...........


You were right the first time. Laws vary from state to state -- and the critical issue is usually whether you are recording AUDIO.


Solid 5 said:


> They can ask you to turn the camera off, at which time....I am quite sure.....you legally can end the ride in a safe location.


That's a grey area. I think Uber would support you on that.

Lyft, I rather doubt. I have never had a complaint about my dashcam (with notice posted because Florida is a two-party consent state), but I have read screenshots of Lyft saying if you get further complaints (even if you're perfectly legal), they will deactivate...which is just Lyft being Lyft.

I also advise celebrity pax of my dashcam, tell them it will not be posted anywhere, and ask if they want me to turn it off.


----------



## Las Vegas Dude (Sep 3, 2018)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. Who knows if they pleasure themselves in private with the secretly captured footage content of the female/male passengers depending on their sexual orientation. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


Unless it's a secret upskirt cam built into the back of the seat (which would be illegal) or something like that, "most" cams are in plain sight on the window and you can see it. There are mirror cams that might be a little harder to spot but if your riding a rideshare ride you should expect to be recorded. You can choose to end the ride if you don't want to be recorded.


----------



## OtherUbersdo (May 17, 2018)

Troll .


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. Who knows if they pleasure themselves in private with the secretly captured footage content of the female/male passengers depending on their sexual orientation. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


Behaving in an Uber or Lyft car should be mandatory. The thing is, as a passenger, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's car. Get over it.



JimKE said:


> You were right the first time. Laws vary from state to state -- and the critical issue is usually whether you are recording AUDIO.


Incorrect. The eavesdropping laws protect against covert recordings. A dashcam is not. The legal litmus test us whether a passenger has a reasonable expectation of privacy. They do not.


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

Seahawk3 said:


> *If you don't do anything wrong then nothing to worry about*. It's a private vehicle your getting in no different then a house. If you don't want to be recorded don't leave your residence. In today's age you just have to assume your always being recorded


ah that "either your with us or you are one of them" argument. Love it. I suppose if i'm against the death penalty, I must be harden criminal myself, or else why would i oppose it, after-all, i have nothing to fear right? 10/10 logic.

being record is ok, just asking for disclosure, because people expects, privacy to a certain degree in a private ride. Just because something is allowed legally does not make it right. I'm sure as Uber drivers, Uber already taught you that lesson?


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

Las Vegas Dude said:


> Even if someone discloses they have a camera and you are being recorded they could still go "pleasure themselves" from the footage.


at least you have the choice to choose whether you want to continue the ride


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

It ought to be REQUIRED that there is a front and back facing dash camera with audio in operation when a passenger is in the vehicle. This would help us with false accusations and would probably lead to a lot better behavior from passengers over time (as they will know 100% they are being recorded).


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Solid 5 said:


> You have to disclose you are recording the ride....either verbally or somewhere posted clearly in pax view.
> 
> They can ask you to turn the camera off, at which time....I am quite sure.....you legally can end the ride in a safe location.


Not in my state.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Solid 5 said:


> You have to disclose you are recording the ride....either verbally or somewhere posted clearly in pax view.
> 
> They can ask you to turn the camera off, at which time....I am quite sure.....you legally can end the ride in a safe location.


Depends on the state, and audio and visual recordings are usually handled separately.

In NJ, with regard to audio, we are a single-party consent state. Any single person in the conversation (greeting counts) can record audio with no disclosure necessary. I'm not sure if they'd have to if directly asked, though.

In NJ with regard to video, it's a matter of "reasonable expectation of privacy". A car being used for Rideshare, while being used for Rideshare, is considered a privately-owned business for the general public, and so a public space. Video recording is allowed with no announcement necessary. Footage CAN be used for publication with or without financial gain to the person filming. Uber has recently adopted a policy where drivers can't do this, but that is company policy, not the law.

There are cameras EVERYWHERE now. You want privacy? Don't leave your home, and keep the curtains closed.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> Behaving in an Uber or Lyft car should be mandatory. The thing is, as a passenger, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's car. Get over it.
> 
> Incorrect. The eavesdropping laws protect against covert recordings. A dashcam is not. The legal litmus test us whether a passenger has a reasonable expectation of privacy. They do not.


Is that the way it is in Chicago?
Because ... news flash. Laws vary.
And Chicago is not the center of the country.

Where I live if there's a recorder of audio, I have to post a sign.
If its video only ... no disclosure needed.


----------



## METRO3 (Sep 3, 2017)

Seahawk3 said:


> If you don't do anything wrong then nothing to worry about. It's a private vehicle your getting in no different then a house. If you don't want to be recorded don't leave your residence. In today's age you just have to assume your always being recorded


It is not a private vehicle if u have pax paying money to get into it. It becomes a business and just like any other business it has to follow whatever laws your state has. Each state has different laws.



touberornottouber said:


> It ought to be REQUIRED that there is a front and back facing dash camera with audio in operation when a passenger is in the vehicle. This would help us with false accusations and would probably lead to a lot better behavior from passengers over time (as they will know 100% they are being recorded).


It may help you with the police but not with LUber. If they look into your account and find u not worthy of staying on the system then #outtheygo lol they don't care if u have footage. That is not to say u shouldn't have one but it won't save u from a deactivation. 
I could be wrong but so far I have not seen one user on here post that they showed uber footage and got reactivated. If u have speak up tell us your story


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> Is that the way it is in Chicago?
> Because ... news flash. Laws vary.
> And Chicago is not the center of the country.
> 
> ...


News flash, it was a us court of appeals decision, and scotus declined to take it up, which means they agreed. So yeah, laws vary, but when federal high court rules if the law applies to one thing and not another, news flash, it prevails.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> News flash, it was a us court of appeals decision, and scotus declined to take it up, which means they agreed. So yeah, laws vary, but when federal high court rules if the law applies to one thing and not another, news flash, it prevails.


First of all, a SCOTUS decision _not to review_ a lower court case does NOT mean they agree with the lower court's decision.

More likely, it means they didn't like the fact set of the case and didn't want to create a precedent with a questionable case -- OR, there was no technical error by the lower court which would provide an avenue for appeal.

If an appeals case is declined by SCOTUS, it prevails ONLY in that Court of Appeals' jurisdiction. It is not precedent for the entire country, and does NOT apply outside of that district.

Second, regardless of the various laws, I think *any driver would be just plain stupid to risk their livelihood on some hair-splitting jailhouse lawyer opinion they read on the Internet. *

If you have an issue with recording a pax, *you are not going to trial in a court of law. *

Some 22 year-old sitting in a cubicle in San Francisco (or Manila!) is going to make the decision. And it is most likely going to be final, and may very well have nothing to do with the law, or someone's interpretation of some court case they heard about somewhere.

In addition, I have seen screenshots from Lyft saying they have a 3 Strikes and You're Out policy on dashcams. Three complaints, regardless of validity, and you are done. Lyft doesn't like dashcams.

So my advice is to err on the side of caution. 

Use a dashcam. 
KNOW your local law from the statutes, not from some Internet lawyer. 
If in doubt, post a simple notice that recording MAY be occurring. 
Don't overthink this.


----------



## METRO3 (Sep 3, 2017)

Las Vegas Dude said:


> Even if someone discloses they have a camera and you are being recorded they could still go "pleasure themselves" from the footage.


The point of privacy laws isn't to stop people from masterbating to ur image but to stop people from posting it online and also to stop people from making money off your image.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

JimKE said:


> First of all, a SCOTUS decision _not to review_ a lower court case does NOT mean they agree with the lower court's decision.


It is exactly what it means. The appellate process works like so:

Trial court hears facts, testimony, and reviews evidence. If a case is taken on appeal, the only thing in question was whether or not the lower court applied the law, and the precedent appropriately. If the SCOTUS denies a petition, it means they did feel the appellate court adjudicated correctly.


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

VictorD said:


> The idiot strikes again.
> 
> First time this jackass thought it was _his _decision to make whether or not drivers were to pick up other riders on shared rides. Now, he demands an announcement as to whether the person's car that he is getting into is utilizing a dashcam so that he knows whether or not it's safe to masturbate.
> 
> Don't worry, genius. It's a camera, not a magnifying glass. No one's gonna see your 1.5" pecker.


Considering I paid for the service, it is a private ride, in which case, I should (morally speaking) be notified.

When you rent a hotel room, you dont own the hotel and it is private property but you did paid for the room service. Do you not expect some form of privacy or you think it's ok to record you in their hotel rooms without notification?


----------



## Steve_TX (Feb 2, 2016)

Las Vegas Dude said:


> Even if someone discloses they have a camera and you are being recorded they could still go "pleasure themselves" from the footage.


Just to be legally covered, a driver can disclose they have a camera, sumthin' like dat.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Solid 5 said:


> In the US, disclosure depends on the state...........


Very few states make it a crime not to disclose...
But, use of the footage in Consent states gets weird.
Posting it to a monetized platform would be considered "for profit" or "commercial" use.
Also, in consent required states your video evidence can be excluded if their was not consent given. (Entry after notification, even if just ample signage, may be considered consent and may not. Again that is state and court specific.

But, in most states you can video, for personal private use, without consent all day long.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> It is exactly what it means. The appellate process works like so:
> 
> Trial court hears facts, testimony, and reviews evidence. If a case is taken on appeal, the only thing in question was whether or not the lower court applied the law, and the precedent appropriately. If the SCOTUS denies a petition, it means they did feel the appellate court adjudicated correctly.


It doesn't mean that at all. It means the appeals court decision stands -- and that is only effective in their district.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Solid 5 said:


> You have to disclose you are recording the ride....either verbally or somewhere posted clearly in pax view.
> 
> They can ask you to turn the camera off, at which time....I am quite sure.....you legally can end the ride in a safe location.


Not here in Minnesota..one party consent.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

JimKE said:


> It doesn't mean that at all. It means the appeals court decision stands -- and that is only effective in their district.


No, not really. The scotus would only take an appeal if they thought the lower court didn't rule correctly. And, federal precedent is widely cited in briefs and arguments throughout the country, particularly when scotus had not granted Certiorari.

What law school did you attend?



AveragePerson said:


> Considering I paid for the service, it is a private ride, in which case, I should (morally speaking) be notified.
> 
> When you rent a hotel room, you dont own the hotel and it is private property but you did paid for the room service. Do you not expect some form of privacy or you think it's ok to record you in their hotel rooms without notification?


Most hotels dont have a desk clerk in your room. You are paying for a private room. Apples to oranges.


----------



## BCS DRIVER (Oct 25, 2018)

Know your state's law regarding recording audio/video during ride share is all I can say. Texas allows both with consent by one party. That one party would be you, the driver. No requirement to advise or post a sign.

On a side note it is federal law that LE cannot command you to stop recording them by audio or video except under certain circumstances. Recording during a traffic stop is not one of those circumstances.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Behaving in an Uber or Lyft car should be mandatory. The thing is, as a passenger, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's car. Get over it.
> 
> Incorrect. The eavesdropping laws protect against covert recordings. A dashcam is not. The legal litmus test us whether a passenger has a reasonable expectation of privacy. They do not.


What court case decided there is no reasonable expectation of not being recorded in someone's private vehicle?



UberBeemer said:


> No, not really. The scotus would only take an appeal if they thought the lower court didn't rule correctly. And, federal precedent is widely cited in briefs and arguments throughout the country, particularly when scotus had not granted Certiorari.
> 
> What law school did you attend?
> 
> Most hotels dont have a desk clerk in your room. You are paying for a private room. Apples to oranges.


That's an apples to apples comparison. The pax is paying for a private car.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Demon said:


> That's an apples to apples comparison. The pax is paying for a private car.


Pax is paying for a ride. Not a private vehicle, in the sense that you mean.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Pax is paying for a ride. Not a private vehicle, in the sense that you mean.


As a point of fact they are. Your car is a private vehicle.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Demon said:


> As a point of fact they are. Your car is a private vehicle.


Privately owned. By me. Not Uber, Lyft, or the pax. They're in a greenhouse, and on public roads. They have no reasonable expectation of privacy. They pay for a ride. That's all they get. If they don't like being on camera, they can request another car after i get my cancel fee.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Privately owned. By me. Not Uber, Lyft, or the pax. They're in a greenhouse, and on public roads. They have no reasonable expectation of privacy. They pay for a ride. That's all they get. If they don't like being on camera, they can request another car after i get my cancel fee.


You keep saying that there's no expectation of privacy, but what are you basing that on?


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

So take a look at this language:

There are two types of expectations of privacy:


Subjective expectation of privacy - a certain individual's opinion that a certain location or situation is private; varies greatly from person to person
Objective, legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy - An expectation of privacy generally recognized by society and perhaps protected by law.
Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are a person's residence or hotel room[1] and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector in order to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[2] or a phone booth.[3]

In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public. ...

While a person may have a subjective expectation of privacy in his/her car, it is not always an objective one, unlike a person's home.[12]


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> So take a look at this language:
> 
> There are two types of expectations of privacy:
> 
> ...


Someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in something held out to the public, you did mention public restrooms, which as their name indicates are open to the public.

This comes down to a simple question, when you get in a friend's car, do you expect to be recorded?


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

As i have said hear in many other threads, eavesdropping laws protect us from *covert*
recording. Mostly, phone calls, or unlawful taps, or just hiding a tape recorder to capture a conversation.

A dash cam is in plain view, and in a car you are getting a ride in. That arrangement does not entitle a pax to dictate whether you can operate your camera, anymore than they could tell a bank branch to turn off theirs.



Demon said:


> Someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in something held out to the public, you did mention public restrooms, which as their name indicates are open to the public.
> 
> This comes down to a simple question, when you get in a friend's car, do you expect to be recorded?


No, a restroom is a publicly accessible facility, but setup for privacy. And, if your friend has a dashcam, that is their perogative. Uour expectation is irrelevant. It is their car.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> As i have said hear in many other threads, eavesdropping laws protect us from *covert*
> recording. Mostly, phone calls, or unlawful taps, or just hiding a tape recorder to capture a conversation.
> 
> A dash cam is in plain view, and in a car you are getting a ride in. That arrangement does not entitle a pax to dictate whether you can operate your camera, anymore than they could tell a bank branch to turn off theirs.


No one said pax could dictate. The issue I'm bringing up is, there may very well be a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private vehicle. A bank branch is comparing apples to oranges, and banks usually do have some notification somewhere that customers are being recorded.



UberBeemer said:


> As i have said hear in many other threads, eavesdropping laws protect us from *covert*
> recording. Mostly, phone calls, or unlawful taps, or just hiding a tape recorder to capture a conversation.
> 
> A dash cam is in plain view, and in a car you are getting a ride in. That arrangement does not entitle a pax to dictate whether you can operate your camera, anymore than they could tell a bank branch to turn off theirs.
> ...


That doesn't address the question I asked you. There will be no argument from me that a public restroom is a public place where a person has an expectation of privacy.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Interesting.. so you go banks ... and get annoyed by cameras? Smh


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Interesting.. so you go banks ... and get annoyed by cameras? Smh


Never said that, but it seems like your only response is to try to put words in my mouth.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Demon said:


> Never said that, but it seems like your only response is to try to put words in my mouth.


Honestly, I was not trying to put anything in your mouth... smh


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Demon said:


> The issue I'm bringing up is, there may very well be a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private vehicle


Such expectation is not reasonable. They are in someone else's car. They are surrounded by windows. They are in the presence of another (driver) with whom they have no agreement of confidentiality. The car and its windows are on public roads.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Such expectation is not reasonable. They are in someone else's car. They are surrounded by windows. They are in the presence of another (driver) with whom they have no agreement of confidentiality. The car and its windows are on public roads.


Not reasonable based on what?
You still haven't addressed the question. 
Public bathrooms in public parks are on public land but as you pointed out there's no expectation of privacy there.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Not sure why this is confusing to you. But you take part of one thing i said and part of another to come up with something i did not say. 

Lets see if i can play. 

You said you don't understand the basic concept of privacy because it doesn't serve your contrarian narrative.

How did i do?


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. Who knows if they pleasure themselves in private with the secretly captured footage content of the female/male passengers depending on their sexual orientation. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


Not everyone records you, though. Some people may just recall you later from their own memory, without relying on visual aids. However, just display a sign on your person that says that you prohibit anyone who sees you from pleasuring themselves to your image. That would take care of the problem.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

BCS DRIVER said:


> Know your state's law regarding recording audio/video during ride share is all I can say. Texas allows both with consent by one party. That one party would be you, the driver. No requirement to advise or post a sign.
> 
> On a side note it is federal law that LE cannot command you to stop recording them by audio or video except under certain circumstances. Recording during a traffic stop is not one of those circumstances.


LE can be recorded unless they are undercover, and recording might compromise them.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Not sure why this is confusing to you. But you take part of one thing i said and part of another to come up with something i did not say.
> 
> Lets see if i can play.
> 
> ...


Awful. After several posts you're still desperate to avoid an actual conversation on this.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

The conversation as you want it to twist, perhaps.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> The conversation as you want it to twist, perhaps.


Not twisting anything. 
When you get in a friend's car do you expect to be recorded?


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Your question is irrelevant. You miss the point by staying focused on the subjective definition. But i will play along.

I have no expectation that my friend might have a camera, but, if he does, it is his car. His choice. My expectation is not relevant.
The car has at least 6 windows surrounding me, so i can be seen from outside by any member of the public that we pass on the public road. How can i expect privacy?

That would be like covering my eyes and thinking i am invisible.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

AveragePerson said:


> It makes people feel uncomfortable


BOO HOO HOO! Will someone please take Original Poster to the Safe Space and make sure that it is fully stocked with puppies, _*cowowing books and cwayons*_?



AveragePerson said:


> Disclosure should be mandatory.


In the Capital of The New Knighted Steaks Uh Murrica, if a taxicab has a camera, it must have a sign that indicates its presence. The taxicab regulations state this specifically. Taxicabs are regulated. Uber and Lyft _*ain't*_. This seems to be the way that everyone wants it. There are consequences to every choice. You make your choices. You live with the consequences.



Demon said:


> when you get in a friend's car, do you expect to be recorded?





Demon said:


> When you get in a friend's car do you expect to be recorded?


The person who gets into my taxicab or Uber/Lyft car when I am working is not my friend. He is my customer. There _*is*_ a difference.



UberBeemer said:


> Your question is irrelevant. You miss the point..
> I have no expectation that my friend might have a camera, but, if he does, it is his car. His choice. My expectation is not relevant.
> That would be like covering my eyes and thinking i am invisible.


*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Demon said:


> Not twisting anything.
> When you get in a friend's car do you expect to be recorded?


I have to jump in here, your display of ignorance is overwhelming. How about something as simple as the genital test:

Is it lawful for you to wave your unexposed genitals around?
In a hotel room yes, in a car most likely no.

If I am waving my genitals around, can I expect to be able to do this without others watching?
In a hotel room yes, in a car no.

So, should a reasonable person have an expectation of privacy (no one being able to see their exposed genitals) in a hotel room, yes. In a car, no!

So are you just arguing to hear your gums flap or what? There is enough case law out there to make this clear.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

My points










A. get a 6 $1.00 stickers and post one inside and outside each passenger door on the window or by the handle.
B. it's not legal to whip out your junk in a car, especially in the precense of a "victim" such as a taxi/uber driver
C. this is industry standard, not just uber/lyft cars
D. It could keep you out of jail, mine has.
E. it could directly aid the prosecution of someone who hurt you.

(Actual image from an actual armed robbery) {taxi but still}


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> My points
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know what, she can have whatever she wants, she looks like she means business.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Disgusted Driver said:


> You know what, she can have whatever she wants, she looks like she means business.


She got an armed robbery with firearm enhancement over $70


----------



## Prius83 (Jan 8, 2019)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


Depends on your state, here in Illinois, we are a Two-Party state, which requires full disclosure when recording somebody. Im sure the law gets murky, especially with all the security cameras today.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> BOO HOO HOO! Will someone please take Original Poster to the Safe Space and make sure that it is fully stocked with puppies, _*cowowing books and cwayons*_?
> 
> In the Capital of The New Knighted Steaks Uh Murrica, if a taxicab has a camera, it must have a sign that indicates its presence. The taxicab regulations state this specifically. Taxicabs are regulated. Uber and Lyft _*ain't*_. This seems to be the way that everyone wants it. There are consequences to every choice. You make your choices. You live with the consequences.
> 
> ...


No, there's no difference. In both instances we're talking about the same car.



Disgusted Driver said:


> I have to jump in here, your display of ignorance is overwhelming. How about something as simple as the genital test:
> 
> Is it lawful for you to wave your unexposed genitals around?
> In a hotel room yes, in a car most likely no.
> ...


So there's all this case law making this clear, but you can't cite a single case. 
You using an apples to orange comparison shows your ignorance.



UberBeemer said:


> Your question is irrelevant. You miss the point by staying focused on the subjective definition. But i will play along.
> 
> I have no expectation that my friend might have a camera, but, if he does, it is his car. His choice. My expectation is not relevant.
> The car has at least 6 windows surrounding me, so i can be seen from outside by any member of the public that we pass on the public road. How can i expect privacy?
> ...


No, the question is incredibly relevant, which is why you spent so long avoiding it, and you haven't made a point yet.

You don't expect to be recorded in a private vehicle. Period. Do you expect that people outside of the car can hear you?


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Demon said:


> No, there's no difference. In both instances we're talking about the same car.
> 
> So there's all this case law making this clear, but you can't cite a single case.
> You using an apples to orange comparison shows your ignorance.
> ...


You are still stuck on the subjective definition of privacy. I am not avoiding the point, but have addressed it directly from a legal standpoint. You can reasonably expect not to be recorded in your own car. Beyond that, your expectation is not only unreasonable, but legally, unfounded. Sorry. Keep ignoring it if you want, but this is the point.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Creeps like this is why I install video cameras _*everywhere*_.


----------



## tc49821 (Oct 26, 2017)

You give a friend a ride and don't tell him you got a camera ok. Someone paying you for a ride,maybe you think it's peanuts .They should have the right to know they are being recorded and refuse the ride . I agree with op,people should know the difference. They are choosing to be stubborn to say it's no difference.


----------



## Ovaro (Dec 18, 2018)

I drive in Los Angeles and I use a dash cam. I do have visible signs inside my vehicle letting the pax know about my dash cam. The reasons behind the signs are the following: to cover any legal issues about recording devices, and to keep the pax on their toes. People tend to act nicer when they are aware that they are being recorded. This is specially true when certain videos have surfaced on social media causing some passengers to get fired from their jobs. Once in a great a while, I may get a passenger who is not comfortable with the dash cam. I let them know that it is for insurance purposes in the event of car accident. So far everything has worked toward my advantage.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> You are still stuck on the subjective definition of privacy. I am not avoiding the point, but have addressed it directly from a legal standpoint. You can reasonably expect not to be recorded in your own car. Beyond that, your expectation is not only unreasonable, but legally, unfounded. Sorry. Keep ignoring it if you want, but this is the point.


Then your point is factually incorrect. You still haven't cited a single case showing it is legal to record someone in your car without notification or consent.


----------



## jaystonepk (Oct 30, 2017)

Demon said:


> Then your point is factually incorrect. You still haven't cited a single case showing it is legal to record someone in your car without notification or consent.


STFU!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> No, there's no difference. In both instances we're talking about the same car.


There are not one, but at least TWO differences. The first is the purpose for which I am using the vehicle. The second is the purpose for which the passenger is boarding the vehicle.

Further, in the case of the TNC vehicle, should there be a mishap that results in a loss in which the passenger is involved, there will be a difference in the responding insurance policy. If I am logged into the Uber application and the passenger boarding is the one who summoned me, the James River policy that Uber provides must respond. If I am not logged into the Uber application, the Erie policy must respond.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> Depends on the state, and audio and visual recordings are usually handled separately.
> 
> In NJ, with regard to audio, we are a single-party consent state. Any single person in the conversation (greeting counts) can record audio with no disclosure necessary. I'm not sure if they'd have to if directly asked, though.
> 
> ...


So true if anyone walks down my block me and at least 4 cameras are on you from different addresses if not double that amount. A lot of people just foolishly assume their not on camera.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Demon said:


> Not reasonable based on what?
> You still haven't addressed the question.
> Public bathrooms in public parks are on public land but as you pointed out there's no expectation of privacy there.


He already explained it to you; you can try reading his explanation again, but if you can't understand his explanation, that's not his fault.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal concept. It's not subject to what you personally think is "reasonable". Here's another explanation:

https://lawshelf.com/videos/entry/reasonable-expectation-of-privacy


----------



## merryon2nd (Aug 31, 2016)

I have a dash cam (two way, inside/outside), and operate in PA and NJ. I don't bother disclosing. Its positioned in such a way that if you have ANY situational awareness, you'd be able to see it for yourself. If you don't pay attention to what's around you (because, that's a good way to be when being driven by strangers, for sure), that's not my problem. I paid for the cam, I pay for the gas, the repairs, the note on my cars. You don't. When you DO pay for my costs, I'll let you dictate what I have in said car. The cops where I drive know I have it, I asked if it would be okay to operate the way I am. I've not gotten any flack from law enforcement, or my lawyer friends. So I'm pretty sure, when it came to me, you wouldn't have a foot to stand on.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

The only complaints about my dash cam has come from invader pax from potato-blue neo-lib states. I give them the obligatory 1-star for my personal entertainment. 

When you walk down the street, you're on camera.

When you walk into a retail store, you're on camera.

When you walk into a bar or restaurant, you're on camera.

When you ride a bus, train, or airplane, you're on camera.

When you're in public, surrounded by people with smart phones, and behave like a moron, you will most certainly be on camera.


----------



## welikecamping (Nov 27, 2018)

Sounds like the OP may be a bit bent out of shape for being reported that he made a false claim against a driver. A driver that had a dashcam video that refuted his bogus claim.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

I'll just leave this here~

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/business/china-surveillance-technology.html

*Inside China's Dystopian Dreams: A.I., Shame and Lots of Cameras*


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> He already explained it to you; you can try reading his explanation again, but if you can't understand his explanation, that's not his fault.
> 
> "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal concept. It's not subject to what you personally think is "reasonable". Here's another explanation:
> 
> https://lawshelf.com/videos/entry/reasonable-expectation-of-privacy


Your cite literally proves the point I've been making all along.

"First, the person must show a "subjective" expectation that his activities or items would be private.

Second, the individual must show that his subjective expectation of privacy is one which society considers reasonable."



Cary Grant said:


> The only complaints about my dash cam has come from invader pax from potato-blue neo-lib states. I give them the obligatory 1-star for my personal entertainment.
> 
> When you walk down the street, you're on camera.
> 
> ...


Those private property venues likely disclose that people are being recorded, so they're getting consent. No one expects to be recorded in another person's private car.



merryon2nd said:


> I have a dash cam (two way, inside/outside), and operate in PA and NJ. I don't bother disclosing. Its positioned in such a way that if you have ANY situational awareness, you'd be able to see it for yourself. If you don't pay attention to what's around you (because, that's a good way to be when being driven by strangers, for sure), that's not my problem. I paid for the cam, I pay for the gas, the repairs, the note on my cars. You don't. When you DO pay for my costs, I'll let you dictate what I have in said car. The cops where I drive know I have it, I asked if it would be okay to operate the way I am. I've not gotten any flack from law enforcement, or my lawyer friends. So I'm pretty sure, when it came to me, you wouldn't have a foot to stand on.


Your post is nonsense. Pennsylvania is a 2 party consent state, so you must have the pax's consent to record them. You're just assuming you have consent, not actually getting it. And the pax is paying for the costs.


----------



## merryon2nd (Aug 31, 2016)

How the hell is a camera that I and only I pay for costing them a damn penny first off. Secondly, I've been told by LE that this is acceptable, and seen people laughed out of the precinct when they tried to press charges once LE saw the contents that they were trying to protect themselves from. The only people that complain are those that have wronged ME. Sorry that I do not allow snow flakes to get away with being miscreants in my personal property. Also sorry that they don't get their way when they attempt to complain. I know you're all about the pax getting their way at the expense of drivers.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

merryon2nd said:


> How the hell is a camera that I and only I pay for costing them a damn penny first off. Secondly, I've been told by LE that this is acceptable, and seen people laughed out of the precinct when they tried to press charges once LE saw the contents that they were trying to protect themselves from. The only people that complain are those that have wronged ME. Sorry that I do not allow snow flakes to get away with being miscreants in my personal property. Also sorry that they don't get their way when they attempt to complain. I know you're all about the pax getting their way at the expense of drivers.


Never said it did cost them a penny. Go back and read what I wrote. Yes, having a camera in your car is acceptable, recording people without their consent in Pennsylvania is a different issue. I'm actually about drivers not working for Uber or Lyft at all until the working conditions change. 
If that many people are complaining about you, and you're actually spending that much time in a police station, maybe the issue isn't your pax.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Demon said:


> Your cite literally proves the point I've been making all along.


Try reading what it says about passengers in cars.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Try reading what it says about passengers in cars.


I did. Pax aren't the ones to decide if the car is searched by a cop. Drivers still need consent to record.


----------



## Howie428Uber (Mar 4, 2016)

The ironic thing about this whole discussion is how redundant it is. There is a known camera and audio recording device sitting in plain sight during every ride share trip... It's called a phone. Whether you believe it is recording or not, the device is sitting right there, so the possibility exists that it is recording.


----------



## Terri Lee (Jun 23, 2016)

Solid 5 said:


> You have to disclose you are recording the ride....


Any other stuff you just made up you'd like to post?


----------



## MrKen (Aug 19, 2018)

I cannot turn off my camera, it runs 24/7, it is an owl cam. It also works as my security both on and off duty. It was expensive but it is worth it.It also sends me alerts and video if someone messes with my vehicle.


----------



## Solid 5 (Aug 24, 2018)

Terri Lee said:


> Any other stuff you just made up you'd like to post?


It's true from what I have read.......and now that snarky comment gets you the.........


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Demon said:


> Then your point is factually incorrect. You still haven't cited a single case showing it is legal to record someone in your car without notification or consent.


Well you haven't cited one law that says you have to. And if i did give you a link, i dont believe you have the background or training to read a case decision and interpret it correctly.

The reason i say this, is because you can't even seem to distiguish between a private car, meaning one you don't have to share with others, and the concept of personal privacy, where your conduct isn't subject to scrutiny by others. Its not a difficult concept, but you resist it with vigor for some reason.



Demon said:


> Pennsylvania is a 2 party consent state,


Consent applies to eavesdropping laws. Those exist to protect against things like covert recordings. You clearly have no legal background, or you would understand the intent of the statutes.

A dashcamera that is in plain view isnt subjected to the same regulation.



JohnnyBravo836 said:


> https://lawshelf.com/videos/entry/reasonable-expectation-of-privacy


This is actually a really good article, as it explains very clearly the concepts being discussed. It also has several cases cited that establish the points i have been asserting.

Thanks for posting, JohnnyBravo836


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Well you haven't cited one law that says you have to. And if i did give you a link, i dont believe you have the background or training to read a case decision and interpret it correctly.
> 
> The reason i say this, is because you can't even seem to distiguish between a private car, meaning one you don't have to share with others, and the concept of personal privacy, where your conduct isn't subject to scrutiny by others. Its not a difficult concept, but you resist it with vigor for some reason.
> 
> ...


People can expect a level of privacy in a private car> If I don't understand it, please explain it. If you have more legal training than me, please let me know where you got your JD.

Just because the camera is there, doesn't mean you have consent.

https://qz.com/985832/uber-drivers-...ct-against-bad-reviews-and-false-accusations/

California, for example, has two-party consent, meaning a private conversation can only be recorded with the consent of all parties. Other states only restrict audio recording where there's a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. "The back of a car *probably* doesn't qualify, because the driver could easily overhear any conversation taking place," Mason Kortz, an instructor at Harvard Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic, told Quartz in an email. But, he added, "if audio recording would unnerve some riders, who is the court to say that riders are 'unreasonable' to feel that way?"

In New York City, where yellow cabs are ubiquitous and strictly regulated, taxi drivers that use dash cams are required to notify riders with a sign saying, "This vehicle is equipped with camera security. YOU WILL BE PHOTOGRAPHED." Similar regulations apply to all for-hire vehicles, which in the city includes ride-hailing drivers.

Many drivers are aware of these potential complications. Questions about the legality of using a dash-cam-and in particular recording audio-pop up often in online forums, and drivers tend to encourage each other to research the laws in their specific states. A few have put up signs in their cars to let passengers know a recording is taking place. "Had to make a sign for my dash cam so&#8230; I made this lil beauty," a driver wrote on uberpeople.net in late April, before posting a photo of his handiwork. "RECORDING IN PROGRESS," the sign read, in large capital lettering. "TIPS APPRECIATED."


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

You are sorely mistaken about my background. My legal career spanned 35 years.

I will stand by the assessment that precedents have clearly established the legality of using a dashcam, with or without posting any signage. You can cling to whatever you like, but the example you quote, an email from Mason Kortz, isn't exactly a decided case you would cite in a brief. Mostly, he is agreeing with what i said. Secondarily, his thought that a rider feeling unnerved is not in support the idea that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It just means they might subjectively feel they do. It doesn't change the reality that they are in a strangers personal car, surrounded by windows.

By all means, post your sign. It probably does more to make you feel good than it would matter if a pax complained.


----------



## Ant42 (Dec 8, 2018)

The OP is an admitted POOL user who tries to get drivers to turn off additional pool requests.

Link:https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber...e-request-when-you-ask-them-to-nicely.304192/

I wonder if the poster got caught on video making the request?


----------



## IDriveGNV (Mar 10, 2018)

Florida. Two party state. Consent is needed for recording with a microphone. I do it this way to mention it as casually as possible while still covering all the bases.

"Ah, let me get my announcements done. I have a security camera (pointing it out) and there's a microphone in it. So I have to ask if everyone's okay with it. Is that four yeses? Great, let's get your trip started."

That's worked for me just fine for about 4500 trips. I have had numerous passengers complain about the camera to Lyft or Uber. In each case the company just wants to be sure that I'm following Florida law. I have to explain in detail like I did above exactly what I do. That puts an end to it. Lyft has not deactivated me for having a camera, and they are very aware of it, it's all over my file.

When a passenger isn't comfortable with the camera, I politely suggest they can get another driver. It happened again tonight. No problems, he decided to give consent and get his ride done.

I get mild objections to the camera about once every 300 rides. About once in 1000 rides I'll have a pax that refuses to be on camera and exits the vehicle.

I don't use stickers because they wouldn't be effectively visible at night. I make sure that everyone's consent is captured by the camera.

I drive in a medium sized college town, and from what I can tell there are less than a half dozen cameras in use here. I seem to be the only one that makes the proper announcement from what I've heard.

Regarding privacy, I believe it's the law that a common vehicle with clear windows driving down a public road where taller vehicles can view the interior of yours, there is no expectation of privacy. Now, in a limo with blacked-out windows and a partition separating you from the driver, that may be different.


----------



## UberDroneGuy (Jan 13, 2019)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


Your a real piece of work aren't you Average Person? Let me clue you in to some Uber secrets. The Cameras most of us have, (I have one) are to protect us from worthless souls like you. I don;t have to tell customers they are being videotaped. It is there for MY protection against malicious souls like you. Not our problem you didn't go to college and qualify for a good job. Sorry your such a miserable person.

How about a truce?

Everyone at Uber would truly appreciate you never using the service again. So, stop using Uber and we will all stop telling you what a worthless soul and human being you are! Deal?

Cheers-
UberDroneGuy


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Demon said:


> I did. Pax aren't the ones to decide if the car is searched by a cop. Drivers still need consent to record.


Not in Minnesota .. 1 Party Consent


----------



## UberDroneGuy (Jan 13, 2019)

Ant42 said:


> The OP is an admitted POOL user who tries to get drivers to turn off additional pool requests.
> 
> Link:https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber...e-request-when-you-ask-them-to-nicely.304192/
> 
> I wonder if the poster got caught on video making the request?


The guy is an Uber nightmare. He is everyones nightmare. I have had about 20 of these people in my car over the last 876 rides and those 20 people have made me regret ever teaming with Uber, as in most cases all these people deserve is a claw hammer to their head.

But it's wrong to take a claw hammer to their head, Uber frowns upon this; Solution; When taking rides from arseholes like Average Person, when they start getting belligerent, tell them you will cancel the trip unless they exercise self control. When they get belligerent, simply pull over the car wherever you might be and tell them to "get out." Cancel the trip before them and they cannot hurt your rating. And they still have to pay.

Cheers-
UberDroneGuy


----------



## dfwlyber (Dec 26, 2018)

Kodyhead said:


> I agree, I hate it when I break into someone's house or shoplift and they dont disclose that its been recorded on video


That was you on the 5 o'clock news?


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Just like anyone has the right to exit a car that has a camera in it, so too the owner of that car has the right to mount a camera in their car. Whether or not they can make the footage/audio public and/or if it is admissible in a court of law, is a different thing.

It is similar to possessing a firearm on one's property. If it is a legal weapon, owner of their property can brandish it, but in many cases, if 'No Trespassing' signs are not posted, they may not be able to discharge it.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

IDriveGNV said:


> Florida. Two party state. Consent is needed for recording with a microphone. I do it this way to mention it as casually as possible while still covering all the bases.
> 
> "Ah, let me get my announcements done. I have a security camera (pointing it out) and there's a microphone in it. So I have to ask if everyone's okay with it. Is that four yeses? Great, let's get your trip started."
> 
> ...


That's why I recommend putting up stickers on the inside and outside of the passenger windows.

$5.00 and your covered.

However it's a lot easier to just do video in Florida, legally speaking.

As long as they have no expectation of privacy (which they don't in a taxi cab/town car service)

Expectation or privacy is limited to a few select parts of businesses.

Bedrooms; bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and other places where one would do private things are protected. The back of your for-hire vehicle isn't in this category.

Basically as long as you don't have the cameras configured to do an upskirt/down blouse shot your legally fine, with or without notice.

And some jurisdictions in Florida REQUIRE late night businesses to have security cameras.

Make sure your not picking up late night in one of the places with this requirement without a camera.


----------



## Ishurue (Oct 20, 2018)

depending on State etc, city etc

That is illegal . google search Wire Tap Stature .

in Mass you can record on public property and in private, but if there is any form of audio, anyone in that room has to be notified of it and were exactly the recording device/s is/are . gist of it. 

If a Driver does not have a sign or does not verbally say or text you , that is illegal at least in Mass.

from when i was a PAX i dont like cameras watching me in a car ride . I could understand turning them on if i was acting all sketchy n Crap. 

Grow a Pair n not be such a wuss. Think back in days in 1950s etc, where cameras in cars maybe exclusive to politicians and the very rich .

unless your camera is live streaming to internet, the PAX if wanted to could just beat your ass to bloody pulp, take your camera etc. even if you see there uber account for ID , you realize it was a stolen uber account etc.

Your best defense is to go to a Martial arts school, request you want to have special training of defending yourself while sitting down seat belt on in drivers seat. MMA, Karate, boxing in this kind of restricted environment may be extremely useless . 

a Camera may just piss off a very dangerous person even more, as well as give off that your weak kind of vibe, making it more likely for someone to want to harm you .

If someone is reckless enough to commit a crime in uber ride, think that kind of person gives a shit about a camera ?

Your best defense, Mind your Frucking business, you hear Pax talking bout doing illegal shit, who cares, if you really wana get noisy do something about it after ride is over . do not abruptly end the ride & say get out, even if your carrying a a legal firearm on ya. 
finish ride or if your very scared drive close to a cop if situation is a critical one crash into a cop car. 

Do not let that kind of PAX know you are scared even if you just soiled yourself scared lol .


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Ishurue said:


> depending on State etc, city etc
> ...
> Grow a Pair n not be such a wuss. Think back in days in 19*90*s etc, where cameras in cars maybe exclusive to politicians and the very rich .
> 
> ...


_Fixed that for ya..._


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> It is exactly what it means. The appellate process works like so:
> 
> Trial court hears facts, testimony, and reviews evidence. If a case is taken on appeal, the only thing in question was whether or not the lower court applied the law, and the precedent appropriately. If the SCOTUS denies a petition, it means they did feel the appellate court adjudicated correctly.


You are wrong. If a federal appeals court makes a ruling, it is a precedent ONLY in their circuit. The only court rulings that apply to the whole nation are Supreme Court Rulings. Declining to take a case changes nothing.



Ishurue said:


> from when i was a PAX i dont like cameras watching me in a car ride . I could understand turning them on if i was acting all sketchy n Crap.


Not wanting to be recorded in my car makes you sketchy. End of ride.


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

I spoke to a lawyer about Utah law on dashcams in my rideshare car. Video, he said, in a vehicle is fine without notification. This is because the car has windows and there is no expectation of privacy. 

Audio gets a little trickier. State law says only one person in a conversation has to know about the audio recording device. As a rideshare driver, if more than two passengers are in my car talking to each other, I’m recording illegally. There are very obvious signs on the back windows that state clearly audio and video recording in the vehicle for everyone’s safety. 

Some mention it, most don’t. All of them who have, say, ‘smart, I’d do that, too.’ Some ask if there was a triggering event in my driving career that made me want to get it. I usually tell them my wife was involved in an accident a couple years before ridesharing that totaled our car, cops couldn’t determine fault, I’d rather not get screwed again.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

xgamrgeekx said:


> I spoke to a lawyer about Utah law on dashcams in my rideshare car. Video, he said, in a vehicle is fine without notification. This is because the car has windows and there is no expectation of privacy.
> 
> Audio gets a little trickier. State law says only one person in a conversation has to know about the audio recording device. As a rideshare driver, if more than two passengers are in my car talking to each other, I'm recording illegally. There are very obvious signs on the back windows that state clearly audio and video recording in the vehicle for everyone's safety.
> 
> Some mention it, most don't. All of them who have, say, 'smart, I'd do that, too.' Some ask if there was a triggering event in my driving career that made me want to get it. I usually tell them my wife was involved in an accident a couple years before ridesharing that totaled our car, cops couldn't determine fault, I'd rather not get screwed again.


In NJ, simply greeting the pax and confirming destination and whatnot constitutes the driver as being party to the conversation, so audio is fine.

I have never been sure on the laws about if the person doing the audio/visual recording has to disclose it if directly asked, so I just always answered honestly... except I would tell them it fed directly to the cloud so they couldn't figure they could rob me and just take the camera and be free and clear.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

FYI, a cam is useful not only against violent pax, but all other misbehavior, particularly when accusations are made against you (the driver).


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Video footage would be good if a PAX ever claimed you drover extra miles, did not end trip when they got out but later, or that you never picked them up.


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> In NJ, simply greeting the pax and confirming destination and whatnot constitutes the driver as being party to the conversation, so audio is fine.
> 
> I have never been sure on the laws about if the person doing the audio/visual recording has to disclose it if directly asked, so I just always answered honestly... except I would tell them it fed directly to the cloud so they couldn't figure they could rob me and just take the camera and be free and clear.


Like I said, Utah law according to a lawyer. He advised I post signs. The only time it could have become an issue that I've come across: dude opens the back door for his spouse where one sign is posted, most likely he saw it. She stated later in the ride, "oh, we're being recorded, I just read the sign." We joked about their ride going on YouTube and *******.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

RaleighUber said:


> You are wrong. If a federal appeals court makes a ruling, it is a precedent ONLY in their circuit.


Just as a technicality, this is not _quite_ correct. While a federal appeals court ruling is only _binding_ authority in that court's circuit, it is still _persuasive_ authority in other courts, and such opinions are frequently cited as relevant precedent in judicial opinions and briefs in other federal circuits, and in state courts. In other words, they don't count fer nothin' outside of that circuit.


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

I just have a sign. I've had a few Senators & Congressmen get in with some chick younger than their daughter & 1 or 2 has said something about it. I just say "lucky for you I don't know your wife, huh Senator?".


----------



## xgamrgeekx (Dec 1, 2018)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> I just have a sign. I've had a few Senators & Congressmen get in with some chick younger than their daughter & 1 or 2 has said something about it. I just say "lucky for you I don't know your wife, huh Senator?".


But oh the opportunities for blackmail!

Just kidding. I'd probably say something similar. Or maybe along the lines of, "I'm not in the business of ruining lives, unlike some people in the news."


----------



## ToughTommy (Feb 26, 2016)

NJ one party consent state. Rarely does anyone ever say anything about my Falcon Zero mirror cam


----------



## IDriveGNV (Mar 10, 2018)

ToughTommy said:


> NJ one party consent state. Rarely does anyone ever say anything about my Falcon Zero mirror cam


You've got it good. Here in Florida as a two-party state I've had to make my consent announcement 4500 times.


----------



## MacAngus (Feb 22, 2018)

Why did I get a dashcam? Last year I noticed a PAX in the back seat recording me on his cell phone, giggling gleefully to his buddy. I asked what he was doing and he said rather boldly, I'm sending this to Uber when you make a mistake and I get a free ride. So I said I have a dashcam (I didn't). But it stopped him immediately. After that, went on Amazon and got me one.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Fargle said:


> FYI, a cam is useful not only against violent pax, but all other misbehavior, particularly when accusations are made against you (the driver).


I beat a sexual *something something* charge with a dash cam.
Assault?
Battery?

I can't remember..

Turned out to be my most profitable day ever driving as i got a nice settlement from the little paxhole's parents to handle the slander/false arrest charges..

"$1,000 to drop the charges?" her parents suggest.
"$10,000" my attorney tells them.

"That's extortion!" her dad says.

"Defamation is a criminal charge in Florida, as is filing a false police report. First you have to bail your little princess out of jail, hire an attorney, the days and days to show up for court, ect ect. I also have the entire time she was in the car on camera, she made a written and verbal complaint to a uniformed police officer and a detective. She is going to lose, and go to jail... $10,000 is a small price for trying to ruin my livelihood and my life. Probably less than the legal costs of her being found guilty. Plus you look the type to drop off money every week while she is in prison to buy chips and soda in the clank. That will add up to" I tell them, speaking for the first time.

"Plus... she is 18, which means that it's real prison and her record can't get sealed" my attorney points out.

The gravity of the situation hits and they write a check.

"I want a cashier's check" my attorney tells them.

That day... i was $9,500 richer...

$(%* lawyers... sometimes you need em, and you always gotta pay em.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

I love my lawyer.
And hope I never have to see her again.


----------



## part-timer (Oct 5, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> I have a sign in my car that says they being recorded -- and they're not.
> There is this little tiny hole in my rear view mirror, with a small led light next to it. It dims the mirror when there's brights back there. If asked I tell them that is the camera.
> Had a guy get in once. About two minutes into the ride he says "So there's a camera in here? Where is it?" I pointed to my mirror and explained that it sends recordings right to the cloud so that they can't be erased by bad guys, and the cops can always find it. He says "So you have to have a sign telling people its here?" I replied in the affirmative. He says, "So, if I don't want to be recorded you have to turn it off."
> "Nope," says I, "I have to let you out of the car. It never gets turned off."
> ...


I *LOVE* this!!!!!! Sounds something like my reply would be.

You're a grown man, you make your own decisions. Hahahahahaha!!! Channel your inner Denzel(from Training Day)


----------



## Kyanar (Dec 14, 2017)

You Americans are lucky with even your two party consent laws. Here in QLD, Australia, you not only have to disclose with the transport department approved sticker that you are operating video surveillance equipment, you're only allowed to use one of 6 approved taxicam systems, and you're not able to access to the footage either - only the transport department and police can download footage from the camera, and being government, that requires a ton of forms. But hey, at least audio recording is legally required.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

IDriveGNV said:


> You've got it good. Here in Florida as a two-party state I've had to make my consent announcement 4500 times.


To be clear you don't have signs but get verbal consent on every ride?

If so imo it's the best way or if the trip is going south to record at the very least that this is being recorded


----------



## IDriveGNV (Mar 10, 2018)

Kodyhead said:


> To be clear you don't have signs but get verbal consent on every ride?
> 
> If so imo it's the best way or if the trip is going south to record at the very least that this is being recorded


Yes, I make the announcement required by law before starting the trip. I make sure each person in the car gives clear consent. This is captured on the camera. I do a lot of driving at night so placing signs could arguably be ineffective notice.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

IDriveGNV said:


> Yes, I make the announcement required by law before starting the trip. I make sure each person in the car gives clear consent. This is captured on the camera. I do a lot of driving at night so placing signs could arguably be ineffective notice.


It's the way I want to do it but I feel it starts the trip on a negative tone and ruins my whole stand up comedy act

But if I was caught doing something stupid in an uber and it was on camera my first strategy would be to get rid of the evidence by claiming there was no sign, but I'm not a lawyer lol


----------



## IDriveGNV (Mar 10, 2018)

Kodyhead said:


> It's the way I want to do it but I feel it starts the trip on a negative tone and ruins my whole stand up comedy act
> 
> But if I was caught doing something stupid in an uber and it was on camera my first strategy would be to get rid of the evidence by claiming there was no sign, but I'm not a lawyer lol


I get you. But the law doesn't require a sign, it requires notice and consent. Same as on the telephone. I word it as casually as possible while being legally sufficient. One triggered person reports me every 30 to 60 days, since there are few cameras being used in the city and they're not used to it. However, I get many times a day compliments from the girls and even the guys that "that's a great idea." It makes people feel more comfortable being in a stranger's car. More often than not it's a conversation starter since they want to know what happened that I need a camera. I tell them it's a Christmas gift sent by my ex-wife, share some stories related to it, and we're off and having a pleasant chat.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

IDriveGNV said:


> I get you. But the law doesn't require a sign, it requires notice and consent. Same as on the telephone. I word it as casually as possible while being legally sufficient. One triggered person reports me every 30 to 60 days, since there are few cameras being used in the city and they're not used to it. However, I get many times a day compliments from the girls and even the guys that "that's a great idea." It makes people feel more comfortable being in a stranger's car. More often than not it's a conversation starter since they want to know what happened that I need a camera. I tell them it's a Christmas gift sent by my ex-wife, share some stories related to it, and we're off and having a pleasant chat.


At least a few times a week I hear that I should be on youtube lol, but dont want to go through the whole mess like consent and releases and a dash cam wouldn't be enough to do it the way I want anyway

Plus I dont imagine I would be driving for uber or Lyft for too much longer if I did lol


----------



## IDriveGNV (Mar 10, 2018)

Kodyhead said:


> At least a few times a week I hear that I should be on youtube lol, but dont want to go through the whole mess like consent and releases and a dash cam wouldn't be enough to do it the way I want anyway
> 
> Plus I dont imagine I would be driving for uber or Lyft for too much longer if I did lol


You probably wouldn't continue driving much longer if you were taking that footage and posting it on YouTube and monetizing it or using it to build up your personal following. I tell them I have a security camera, not a party cam. Capturing footage on a security cam, in my humble opinion, does not enable you to publish it for personal gain or entertainment purposes.
However, if you used to follow the Uber Man videos, he would live stream his rides directly to YouTube. He also monetized it. He did this in what was a one party state. But I think he was treading on thin ice by monetizing it. If he wasn't such a high-profile personality by that time, I doubt Uber or Lyft would have tolerated that.


----------



## vtcomics (Oct 9, 2018)

Kodyhead said:


> I agree, I hate it when I break into someone's house or shoplift and they dont disclose that its been recorded on video


ROFFLMFAO!


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Kyanar said:


> You Americans are lucky with even your two party consent laws. Here in QLD, Australia, you not only have to disclose with the transport department approved sticker that you are operating video surveillance equipment, you're only allowed to use one of 6 approved taxicam systems, and you're not able to access to the footage either - only the transport department and police can download footage from the camera, and being government, that requires a ton of forms. But hey, at least audio recording is legally required.


Its not luck as much as it is a function of our constitution, and individual states rights.
Those rights are being eroded pretty fast, so it won't be long and we'll be a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy like you guys .. with socialism right behind it.


----------



## welikecamping (Nov 27, 2018)

I've always appreciated the Australian concern for privacy. Previously, I supported a software application that would display personal information about users. We made several revisions to the product in order to comply with DPA mandates. I wish America cared more about personal information being shared electronically.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

If you have a dashcam and delete footage not in your favor can you be charged with evidence tampering?


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

Everyone just beating around the bush here.

Ask yourself, would you like to be filmed without your knowledge when you hire a private ride? I would bet you don't. You would prefer to be informed. So why not just practice basic etiquette and post a sign or inform your riders? It won't kill you. People who knows at least have the choice whether they want to continue the ride.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

AveragePerson said:


> Everyone just beating around the bush here.
> 
> Ask yourself, would you like to be filmed without your knowledge when you hire a private ride? I would bet you don't. You would prefer to be informed. So why not just practice basic etiquette and post a sign or inform your riders? It won't kill you. People who knows at least have the choice whether they want to continue the ride.


Agree
and, sometimes the knowledge that you are being recorded _prevents _problems. 
Like I said earlier, I have the sign -- and not the camera, and I think it has helped in some tense situations.


----------



## Brobaly (Oct 31, 2016)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


There certainly are weird people out there, all the more reason to have cameras in your car.


----------



## welikecamping (Nov 27, 2018)

No bushes for me. In my state, it's not required and I don't bother. If you ask if you are being recorded, of course I tell you, but I'm not concerned about it if you are not. If you are concerned, then I am glad I am recording everything, because you seem just like the PITA passenger that would make a false claim.  I'm happy to stop and let you out so you can go ruin someone else's day.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

AveragePerson said:


> Everyone just beating around the bush here.
> 
> Ask yourself, would you like to be filmed without your knowledge when you hire a private ride? I would bet you don't. You would prefer to be informed. So why not just practice basic etiquette and post a sign or inform your riders? It won't kill you. People who knows at least have the choice whether they want to continue the ride.


To tell you the truth I would not care one bit if I was being recorded in a Uber/Lyft with or without my knowledge. I don't do inappropriate things or have private conversations where others can hear.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

AveragePerson said:


> hire a private ride?


Since when is uber private?


----------



## mmn (Oct 23, 2015)

FLKeys said:


> If you have a dashcam and delete footage not in your favor can you be charged with evidence tampering?


Immunity from self-incrimination?...!


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

AveragePerson said:


> Everyone just beating around the bush here.
> 
> Ask yourself, would you like to be filmed without your knowledge when you hire a private ride? I would bet you don't. You would prefer to be informed. So why not just practice basic etiquette and post a sign or inform your riders? It won't kill you. People who knows at least have the choice whether they want to continue the ride.


You didn't hire a "private ride" though. Your own car is a "private ride". A limo IF the partition is in place is a private ride. Uber is a service for the general public. If you ordered an X, then all you bought into is a ride you don't have to share with unknown passengers. Not privacy.

Also, be aware that there is no such thing as Driver-Passenger Confidentiality protection. We're not your doctor, lawyer, or spouse.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> You didn't hire a "private ride" though. Your own car is a "private ride". A limo IF the partition is in place is a private ride. Uber is a service for the general public. If you ordered an X, then all you bought into is a ride you don't have to share with unknown passengers. Not privacy.
> 
> Also, be aware that there is no such thing as Driver-Passenger Confidentiality protection. We're not your doctor, lawyer, or spouse.


In what state is _that _true?


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> In what state is _that _true?


Which part? That there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a car-for-hire except where the pax has the means of "creating" privacy by having a partition closed -- and heavily tinted windows, of course?


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Which part? That there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a car-for-hire except where the pax has the means of "creating" privacy by having a partition closed -- and heavily tinted windows, of course?


I agree with what you are saying, I am just not sure each and every state, county, or city would agree with it. If one was that worried about all the legalities or lack of legalities then spend the money on attorneys and research to figure it out. Me I have my camera and I have a small printed notice on the back of each headrest and where a passenger in the front can see it. I don't verbally tell anyone unless they ask about it. If this does not meet requirements then I guess I will take my chances in court. Highly doubt it will ever come to that.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SuzeCB said:


> Which part? That there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a car-for-hire except where the pax has the means of "creating" privacy by having a partition closed -- and heavily tinted windows, of course?


Any of it.
All states laws are different. Some vary greatly, some small.
Devil is in the details.

If I had to go to a lawyer for a legal opinion, I would most likely seek advice from someone who is licensed in my state, not New Jersey. What 'the law' is where you live, may be quite different from where I live.

I was in court once on another matter and the lawyer before me was pitching his motion to the judge. The lawyer said, in answer to a question from the judge, "oh, your honor, that's just details." The judge looked at him, aghast, and said, "Isn't that what the law IS counselor? A collection of 'details'?"


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


Most states are one party consent states. In a privately owned vehicle the owner has full right to audio and video record without passenger consent.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Gandler said:


> Most states are one party consent states. In a privately owned vehicle the owner has full right to audio and video record without passenger consent.


And the passenger can do the same.


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

SuzeCB said:


> And the passenger can do the same.


I have no problem being filmed, I wear a body cam all day for my day job as well. I always do the right thing.

The only people who care about being filmed are people who know that they behaved crazy wrong and will supply some amusing Youtube content.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Demon said:


> You keep saying that there's no expectation of privacy, but what are you basing that on?


The expectation of privacy is like restrooms, dressing rooms, and hotel rooms. An open car with no divider between you and the hired help cannot provide privacy thus cannot be expected.q


----------



## FlashedBlaze (Sep 30, 2018)

AveragePerson said:


> Everyone just beating around the bush here.
> 
> Ask yourself, would you like to be filmed without your knowledge when you hire a private ride? I would bet you don't. You would prefer to be informed. So why not just practice basic etiquette and post a sign or inform your riders? It won't kill you. People who knows at least have the choice whether they want to continue the ride.


It's you.


----------



## tc49821 (Oct 26, 2017)

I get why a driver has a camera in his car,I normally say his/her car their rules. Even thou uber can be a stressful gig,your driving ppl around for money. Ethichaly they should know they are being recorded,if they don't like it they can leave . It's not exactly a pubic place.


----------



## Uberbrent (Mar 22, 2016)

tc49821 said:


> I get why a driver has a camera in his car,I normally say his/her car their rules. Even thou uber can be a stressful gig,your driving ppl around for money. Ethichaly they should know they are being recorded,if they don't like it they can leave . It's not exactly a pubic place.


Ok...being recorded in a "pubic" place has got to be the funniest misspelling I've seen so far. I guess porn is good.


----------



## tc49821 (Oct 26, 2017)

Haaaa


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

tc49821 said:


> I get why a driver has a camera in his car,I normally say his/her car their rules. Even thou uber can be a stressful gig,your driving ppl around for money. Ethichaly they should know they are being recorded,if they don't like it they can leave . It's not exactly a pubic place.


Several Things. It's a private car. If you come into my house, my security system has every right to film you outside of legally determined privacy areas (bedroom, bathroom, changing room, etc.....) . Same thing if you come into my car.

Now in my case I do have stickers on my doors and camera, and the cameras records both the interior and exteriors (honestly it's more for my protection in the case of no fault accidents or hit and runs). But, in a privately owned car there is no expectation of privacy and the footage can be shared publically or used for any reason (shared in driving sites, sent to lawyer for eval, etc....)

If somebody "ethically" feels the need to be made aware they are being recorded, chances are that means they are behaving in a way that they do not want other people knowing about....


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> The expectation of privacy is like restrooms, dressing rooms, and hotel rooms. An open car with no divider between you and the hired help cannot provide privacy thus cannot be expected.q


Depends on the state yer in.
Above is NOT true in Cali.



Gandler said:


> Several Things. It's a private car. If you come into my house, my security system has every right to film you outside of legally determined privacy areas (bedroom, bathroom, changing room, etc.....) . Same thing if you come into my car.
> ..


Depends on the state yer in.
NOT true in Cali.


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> Depends on the state yer in.
> Above is NOT true in Cali.
> 
> Depends on the state yer in.
> NOT true in Cali.


I have not lived in Cali since before I was 5 so I have no idea. But, every state I have lived in my adult life has been a one party consent state.

If Cali is a two party consent state you need very clear signs and/or verbal confirmation.

https://help.uber.com/partners/arti...-?nodeId=efaad152-cbb6-45fe-9d7d-911842d21c8b

According to Uber it is in accordance with their policy to film and record, and it is Federally legal.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Gandler said:


> I have not lived in Cali since before I was 5 so I have no idea. But, every state I have lived in my adult life has been a one party consent state.
> 
> If Cali is a two party consent state you need very clear signs and/or verbal confirmation.
> 
> ...


Federally legal does not mean squat to states and cities.

Please note that local regulations may require individuals using recording equipment in vehicles to fully disclose to riders that they are being recorded in or around a vehicle and obtain consent. Please check local regulations in your city to determine if these apply.


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

FLKeys said:


> Federally legal does not mean squat to states and cities.
> 
> Please note that local regulations may require individuals using recording equipment in vehicles to fully disclose to riders that they are being recorded in or around a vehicle and obtain consent. Please check local regulations in your city to determine if these apply.


Less than 15 states are 2 part consent. The vast majority of states it is legal, so yes saying it is Federally allowed covers most people.

Also, Wiretapping Laws only apply to audio recordings, so it you record video only (like many stores) you do not need to disclose it.

Again, the easiest thing to do is pay a couple dollars for some car stickers that earn people the inside of the camera is filmed and entry grants consent. Even if you dont have cameras you should do this to keep people on edge.


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

I already have notices in my car, not sure that meets requirements. May still have to verbally tell everyone, I don't know it gets to darn complicated.

I found this, it looks like it covers every state. https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

FLKeys said:


> I already have notices in my car, not sure that meets requirements. May still have to verbally tell everyone, I don't know it gets to darn complicated.
> 
> I found this, it looks


That only applies to audio recording. Video recording is fine even in 2 party consent states (which is a tiny minority).

So if you are in a one party state and are fearful of if you have proper signage, my advice is simply video record.

-I had to edit out your link since apparantly my account is ineligable to quote links-


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Who do


AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


 They think they are !?!?

The GOVERNMENT ???

Spying.
Putting Cameras wherever they Please !

SMILE FOR FACIAL RECOGNITION CAMERA PLEASE

SO YOU CAN BE " CATALOGUED".


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Gandler said:


> Less than 15 states are 2 part consent. The vast majority of states it is legal, so yes saying it is Federally allowed covers most people.
> 
> Also, Wiretapping Laws only apply to audio recordings, so it you record video only (like many stores) you do not need to disclose it.
> 
> Again, the easiest thing to do is pay a couple dollars for some car stickers that earn people the inside of the camera is filmed and entry grants consent. Even if you dont have cameras you should do this to keep people on edge.


Literally a couple dollars. I would put on the passenger door windows inside and outside by the handle.

https://www.ebay.com/p/5x-Smile-You...inyl-Decal/2001902931?iid=142484174698&chn=ps


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

Gandler said:


> That only applies to audio recording. Video recording is fine even in 2 party consent states (which is a tiny minority).
> 
> So if you are in a one party state and are fearful of if you have proper signage, my advice is simply video record.
> 
> -I had to edit out your link since apparantly my account is ineligable to quote links-


I'm going to continue with audio as well, sometimes the audio is more important.

My signs say: Notice For security this vehicle is equipped with audio and video recording devices. Consent given by entering vehicle. It is on the back of each headrest and on the front passenger side dash.


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

FLKeys said:


> I'm going to continue with audio as well, sometimes the audio is more important.
> 
> My signs say: Notice For security this vehicle is equipped with audio and video recording devices. Consent given by entering vehicle. It is on the back of each headrest and on the front passenger side dash.


I have stickers on doors on both sides warning. But, I am not legally obligated to.

Generally I rarely turn on my camera unless I get a bad vibe anyway. The cameras and stickers alone usually keep most drunk people relatively quiet and behaved, even if they stay off. If it's a rowdy night sometimes I will wear my body cam as well that can be quickly switched on if need be.


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


Well if we lived in a safe world where people didn't attack Uber Drivers, and other people when they lost their temper, then we wouldn't need them. Also the laws in my state you only have to post cameras if you are recording audio and video, if it's only video, no sign is needed. Do you have issues when you walk through grocery stores, or malls, or restaurants. Cameras are everywhere because the honor system failed long long ago.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

FLKeys said:


> I already have notices in my car, not sure that meets requirements. May still have to verbally tell everyone, I don't know it gets to darn complicated.


It's not.
People here just make it seem so.
You don't need to hve pax sign a disclosure before you turn it on.
If you're in a two party state just post a note saying that "recording audio and visual in progress" or something like that.


----------



## IDriveGNV (Mar 10, 2018)

I'm in Florida, a two-party notice and consent state. I say to the passengers just after they get settled in and before I start the ride, "Let me get my announcements done. I have a security camera with a microphone, and I have to make sure everyone is okay with it." I check that each passenger has answered, by saying, "Did I hear 4 yeses?" Only then do I make the decision to start the ride or cancel by stating that, "I am uncomfortable with driving someone who objects to a camera. Tell you what, I think you'll be happier with another driver. I'll not start this ride and I'll make sure you're not charged. Thank you!"


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> It is exactly what it means. The appellate process works like so:
> 
> Trial court hears facts, testimony, and reviews evidence. If a case is taken on appeal, the only thing in question was whether or not the lower court applied the law, and the precedent appropriately. If the SCOTUS denies a petition, it means they did feel the appellate court adjudicated correctly.


Not necessarily. They don't have unlimited time. So they can't hear every case, even if it has merit. They pick cases that they think are important, regardless of which way the lower court decided.

Also, saying they agree makes no sense. The whole point of hearing the case is to determine whether to agree or not. Otherwise why even bother? They're supposed to go into each case with an open mind. If they were only going to hear cases they disagreed with they might as well just check each off on a list.
Besides, they often agree with the lower court ruling after hearing the case.



Demon said:


> No one said pax could dictate. The issue I'm bringing up is, there may very well be a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private vehicle. A bank branch is comparing apples to oranges, and banks usually do have some notification somewhere that customers are being recorded.
> 
> That doesn't address the question I asked you. There will be no argument from me that a public restroom is a public place where a person has an expectation of privacy.


How is there an expectation of privacy (at least regarding video) in a vehicle with windows?


----------



## Joe Oliveira (Sep 6, 2018)

AveragePerson said:


> Is creepy af. There are weird people out there like that. It makes people feel uncomfortable. Disclosure should be mandatory.


My camera is right under my rearview mirror it records both inside and outside the car. I don't have do disclosure because is right there on plain sight and you can see the display. It is also capable of recording audio but it turn it off, if I need to turn the audio recording on I would let the passenger know just so I don't get caught with the ancient wiretapping law in MA. But video recording can be going all day long without disclosure.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Fuzzy, there is no limit on how many cases they choose to hear. But certainly, they can't hear the thousands that petition each year.

The purpose of hearing a case isnt to determine whether they agree with the lower court. Its more like they feel there is high probability they might not.

They take on cases based on whether a sufficiently compelling argument is made that the lower court mis-applied the pertinent laws and legal precedent to come to their conclusion.

If a petition is denied, it may not be expressly stated that they agree with the ruling, but the effect is the same. What they essentially say is, we don't find a compelling reason to review this matter, therefore, the lower court's decision stands.

If you ever have a chance to go to see them in session, it is very interesting. It is very formal, and very regimented.



Joe Oliveira said:


> My camera is right under my rearview mirror it records both inside and outside the car. I don't have do disclosure because is right there on plain sight and you can see the display. It is also capable of recording audio but it turn it off, if I need to turn the audio recording on I would let the passenger know just so I don't get caught with the ancient wiretapping law in MA. But video recording can be going all day long without disclosure.


Wiretap laws don't apply to security cameras. They appky to "evesdropping devices" which are covert. You shouldn't worry about it.


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

Demon said:


> You keep saying that there's no expectation of privacy, but what are you basing that on?


Here's a simple Litmus test to determine if there is an expecting of privacy: could you legally get naked and have sex in the vehicle? If not then there is no expectation of privacy. If you could legally be charged for being naked and having sex then it's considered a public area.

Go ahead, test it in your area parked in a police station parking lot during shift change.

Another litmus test. Could you have a conversation in that area with your attorney and that conversation remain confidential? If the driver is in the vehicle then no. Courts have long upheld attorney client privilege only exists when conversation is between client and attorney only with no third parties present to hear or overhear the conversation.

But I'm going to take this 1 step further. In Arizona have a right to carry a concealed weapon in my vehicle there is nothing Uber or Lyft can say. They can NOT deactivate me for it. Arizona law actually says their policy of no firearms is null and void. My cameras are an integral part of my firearm. They are their to accurately and in an unbiased manner record the discharge of said firearm to ensure I have legally splattered your brains in an effective and efficiently humane manner upon your threatening me.

Cameras stay. I don't have to disclose. Don't like it go buy your own car and drive that. Want to go drinking and not drive your car? Drink at home or walk. Remember, I like the camera, it's loyal. Your a pax I'll forget 30 seconds after I drop you. 60 seconds if I shoot you.


----------



## Seahawk3 (Oct 5, 2016)

BlueNOX said:


> Here's a simple Litmus test to determine if there is an expecting of privacy: could you legally get naked and have sex in the vehicle? If not then there is no expectation of privacy. If you could legally be charged for being naked and having sex then it's considered a public area.
> 
> Go ahead, test it in your area parked in a police station parking lot during shift change.
> 
> ...


If you put up curtains so now one could see you have sex then it would be considered ok.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Seahawk3 said:


> If you put up curtains so now one could see you have sex then it would be considered ok.


If this van is rocking, do not be knocking.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> You think disclosing the camera would stop me?
> 
> I don't get this thread.


Someone needs attention...or
They do not understand consent laws pertaining to recording


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Juggalo9er said:


> They do not understand consent laws pertaining to recording


Some states are one-party consent; some two. Original Poster is in Canada. I do not know if the laws up there vary by province, or not. It has been many years since I lived in Canada.


----------



## Juggalo9er (Dec 7, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Some states are one-party consent; some two. Original Poster is in Canada. I do not know if the laws up there vary by province, or not. It has been many years since I lived in Canada.


Can we banish op to sarnia


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Juggalo9er said:


> Can we banish op to sarnia


He might be from that part of Ontario. He never did state where in Canada that he lives.


----------

