# Dash cam notice



## Driver2448 (Mar 8, 2017)

One of the necessities of any ride share driver should be a dash cam. Unfortunately some states require two party consent to recording audio. 

California is one state that requires some sort of notice to be given that there is an audio and recording device in the car. 

Attached is a screenshot of the stickers I have on both sides of my car. I was rather impressed for $5.99 because when I went through the car wash, the stickers were still intact and had not been damaged. 

The stickers are placed on the rear window for best visibility. You’ll notice that it says consent given by entering the vehicle. That means the passenger has given their permission to record audio. 

Thankfully I haven’t had any false complaints where I’ve had to use the dash cam but just in case I get one, I can send a picture of this off to Lyft to counteract against dash cam complaints along with dash cam footage. 

What has also been surprising is the number of positive comments about the dash cam with a significant number of my passengers saying they are going to buy a dash cam for their own car.


----------



## BlueManOC (Jun 21, 2018)

Did you get those off amazon because im getting the vantrue n2 pro dashcam this week and was wondering if i needed stickers or not


----------



## Driver2448 (Mar 8, 2017)

BlueManOC said:


> Did you get those off amazon because im getting the vantrue n2 pro dashcam this week and was wondering if i needed stickers or not


Yeah, I'll dig around for the link later when I'm not busy and post it here later. I got an Akaso during the lightning deal. Decent camera but wish audio was better. And yes you'll need sticker notice or verbal notice if you don't have stickers.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Take a look at this. The "Katz test" is based on whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not believe a rider in my car on a public road has any such reasonable expectation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States


----------



## BlueManOC (Jun 21, 2018)

So does that mean i dont have to put stickers on my window and just say that i have a dashcam that records video


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Basically, it means you should not have to, but the stickers might pre-empt any questioning by riders. I have a cam but don't put up stickers. I politely offer to let anyone uncomfortable with the camera to get another car.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

BlueManOC said:


> So does that mean i dont have to put stickers on my window and just say that i have a dashcam that records video


To be real technical about it, the law only covers audio recording. You can not put stickers or warnings up if you turn off the camera mic. However in those cases where two party consent exists (like California), I would rather get the notices and have the audio then just go with video.

You can tell them you're only taping video and still tape the audio, but you may run into a snag if you try to use it for any legal reason (i.e. lawsuit) as then not only did you record them without their consent, you told them that you were not recording audio. This is just my layman's non-expert opinion.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

I dont see the difference between having the stickers vs not having them and just lying and say you do have them in the event of an incident. 

Unless you are getting verbal consent to recording before every trip from the rider which is the only way to be sure on video. 

I would rather have a video with no stickers, than arguing a few times a week on why I have a dash cam which probably happens more often with the stickers

Plus it would make me happier to catch a lying pax and then produce video evidence to see their stupid look on their faces in front of authorities which is my main goal, but perhaps I have big dreams lol


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Nobody is going to sue you for having a camera. What are their damages? It's out in the open. If they were dumb enough to compromise their privacy by speaking of anything sensitive in your car, they cant hold you accountable, dashcam or not.


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> Nobody is going to sue you for having a camera. What are their damages? It's out in the open. If they were dumb enough to compromise their privacy by speaking of anything sensitive in your car, they cant hold you accountable, dashcam or not.


This is California. Just when you say no one is dumb enough to sue for something or hassle you over what is or is not allowable by law, California says, "hold my beer!"


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Sorry rynohawk 

But I would argue we got the best idiots in the country in Florida lol

It's like the Olympics out here with every country represented lol


----------



## KenLV (Jun 23, 2017)

Notices don't really seem to matter to some people.
I have em and people ignore them and the cameras that are out in the open below my mirror with a solid red and blinking blue light.

This is the 5th or 6th time I've caught some paxhole jackin' his girlfriend in my car.

They tried to contest the cleaning charge for the footprints on my seat and door and nasty azz stain on my seat.
Now they are deactivated and out $80.

My cameras have paid for themselves ten times over (easily) by being able to show proof to Uber/Lyft of a rider doing something stupid and inconsiderate and leaving a mess in my car. Not to mention the riders who tried to say I didn't pick them up. Nice try paxhole! 

BTW, I get it, you're drunk and horny, but do everyone a favor and just wait the 10 minutes folks.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> Take a look at this. The "Katz test" is based on whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not believe a rider in my car on a public road has any such reasonable expectation.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States


For video, I believe the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule applies in every state. Check yours to make sure. Someone in a vehicle-for-hire has no reasonable expectation of privacy for visual recordings.

Audio recordings are different. In two-party-consent states, you'll have to have a sign. In single-party consent states you don't, provided you yourself say something to the people you are recording. "Hello" is sufficient. You also need to be present the entire time. You can't record them if you step out of the car.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Kodyhead said:


> Sorry rynohawk
> 
> But I would argue we got the best idiots in the country in Florida lol
> 
> It's like the Olympics out here with every country represented lol


Oh NO, Kody. You need to get out more, man! There are a number of places with worse idiots than ours (although we do have our moments!).

Did you know that there used to be a secret code at MIA for one particular kind of disturbance? "Unit 7122, *2-1-2* at Gate D-11" Can you decode that?


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

JimKE said:


> "Unit 7122, *2-1-2* at Gate D-11" Can you decode that?


Nasty New Yorker?


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

I became a paramedic after 9/11 as you know FEMA got rid of all the 10 codes and it's been a while and have no clue lol

If I had to guess, drunk funny idiot at american airlines d11 with low priority as a wild guess


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Rex8976 said:


> Nasty New Yorker?


BINGO!



Kodyhead said:


> I became a paramedic after 9/11 as you know FEMA got rid of all the 10 codes and it's been a while and have no clue lol


Miami-Dade has never used 10-codes, at least not since the 70's. Only really backward agencies still use them.

And yeah, I think most EMS agencies just use plain English, pero...


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

What about hsw?


----------



## Rex8976 (Nov 11, 2014)

YAY ME!


----------



## RynoHawk (Mar 15, 2017)

Kodyhead said:


> Sorry rynohawk
> 
> But I would argue we got the best idiots in the country in Florida lol
> 
> It's like the Olympics out here with every country represented lol


I don't disagree, but I was referring more towards the government. They tried to get my parents for unpaid income tax...they haven't lived in Ca. for 20 years at that time.

I'm saying one minute, they might tell you no worries with your dashcam audio (it's a two party consent state), then next they will tell you that it's inadmissible as evidence in your defense or any claim you make because you failed to notify the other party that they were being audio recorded.


----------



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

RynoHawk said:


> I don't disagree, but I was referring more towards the government. They tried to get my parents for unpaid income tax...they haven't lived in Ca. for 20 years at that time.
> 
> I'm saying one minute, they might tell you no worries with your dashcam audio (it's a two party consent state), then next they will tell you that it's inadmissible as evidence in your defense or any claim you make because you failed to notify the other party that they were being audio recorded.


I wouldn't record audio,

Video should be good enough...

And notices about a camera in use should be enough to CYA.
There is no expectation of privacy in a taxi/uber/lyft/whatever the crap you want to call it anyway. Anyone could look in at a red light and see what is going on, as well i could turn around and see what is going on.

Expectation of privacy is reserved to bathrooms and hotel rooms, changing rooms.. ect.

I've already won a self defense case for defending myself with a weapon (flashlight) on camera.

Cops told me that the video of him starting it was enough to claim self defense as well as charge him with battery and pety theft {not paying the cab fare}.

Had their been no video i could have gotten jail time, I would have been charged for sure.
Instead a got a nice legal settlement and dropped the majority of the charges... (he still got a drunk and disorderly charge)


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

I agree, the only way to be sure is to get verbal consent to recording on dashcam but I feel this will only create arguements with mostly people who never would of noticed the camera and will probably be oblivious to the signs as well.

If I was caught on camera it would certainly be my defense and trying to get rid of the evidence lol. In addition if anyone recorded me trying to troll me or anything like these other videos with rider vs driver I would repeat YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO RECORD ME BY VIDEO OR AUDIO IN MY CAR AND PROPERTY with a GET OUT OF MY CAR dude voice over and over again lol

That way if it makes it to you tube I can take a nice vacation when I sue them


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

I think there is a YUGE distinction here that we need to be well aware of.

Whatever the actual law may be in a particular jurisdiction about things like one-party or two-party consent (my state is also two-party), or "expectation of privacy" -- WE are NOT dealing with those legalities in the real world.

*WE are dealing with UBER and LYFT*, not the police. Nobody in their right mind is going to sue an Uber driver (or a cabbie), and nobody's going to put us in jail. The real risk to us is a complaint to the company and their reaction -- which has NOTHING to do with law, implied or expressed consent, or common sense. They do not need any _legal_ justification for deactivating you.

I remember seeing a thread where Lyft contacted a driver about a dashcam complaint. The driver replied that they had the appropriate notifications that recording might be in progress, and sent Lyft pictures of their notices to show their full compliance with local law.

Lyft said basically, _"That's nice, but we've reached out to you before on this issue. *If we get one more complaint, *you'll be permanently deactivated." _ To a driver who had done nothing wrong. These companies don't care about right or wrong.

So my advice on dashcams is as follows:

*HAVE a dashcam*, and record both audio and video. Audio will be critical if a pax complains about something they say you said.
*Ignore* the noise of *arcane legal arguments*. Right or wrong, the legalities are irrelevant. OUR problem is not the law; it's Uber/Lyft.
*Post notices* prominently enough that a reasonable person will see them.
If a pax asks about the cam, I tell them it is for *their protection* as much as mine, and I've never had anything but complete agreement with that (and zero complaints in almost 2,000 rides with a cam).


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

JimKE said:


> I think there is a YUGE distinction here that we need to be well aware of.
> 
> Whatever the actual law may be in a particular jurisdiction about things like one-party or two-party consent (my state is also two-party), or "expectation of privacy" -- WE are NOT dealing with those legalities in the real world.
> 
> ...


I agree, audio is probably as important as video itself.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

SuzeCB said:


> For video, I believe the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule applies in every state. Check yours to make sure. Someone in a vehicle-for-hire has no reasonable expectation of privacy for visual recordings.
> 
> Audio recordings are different. In two-party-consent states, you'll have to have a sign. In single-party consent states you don't, provided you yourself say something to the people you are recording. "Hello" is sufficient. You also need to be present the entire time. You can't record them if you step out of the car.


Suze, all you really need is to tell the passenger, "Yes I have a dashcam recording both audio and video. If you don't consent, I will gladly let you out here so you can get another car, but if you opt to take the ride I am offering, you consent to it."


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> Suze, all you really need is to tell the passenger, "Yes I have a dashcam recording both audio and video. If you don't consent, I will gladly let you out here so you can get another car, but if you opt to take the ride I am offering, you consent to it."


If they noticed it, that's what I did. I'd point out that it also records the road for at least some record if some idiot hit us, and also if we got pulled over by some rogue cop. Only thing I might have stretched the truth on was about it feeding directly to the cloud. If some miscreant thought he'd get away with something by just grabbing the camera, he'd rethink his (or her, for that matter) plans.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

I use the same line about the cloud.


----------



## KenLV (Jun 23, 2017)

Ditto.


----------



## BSki (Aug 3, 2017)

I spoke to two cops here in Ca and both said there is no expectation of privacy in a rideshare. They also went on to say the if pulled over, I do not have to inform the officer that I am recording as the officer also has no expectation of privacy.

I put stickers on all windows just as added CYA.

When asked, I also use the "It uploads to the cloud" line.


----------



## _SEAM_ (Apr 11, 2018)

Driver2448 said:


> One of the necessities of any ride share driver should be a dash cam. Unfortunately some states require two party consent to recording audio.
> 
> California is one state that requires some sort of notice to be given that there is an audio and recording device in the car.
> 
> ...


Its good to put a warning signal, might be worth putting maybe one more inside. But seeing how people have been giving you complaints its seems like its noticeable enough for your passengers.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

UberBeemer said:


> Take a look at this. The "Katz test" is based on whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I do not believe a rider in my car on a public road has any such reasonable expectation.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States


Audio recording and reasonable expectation of privacy are two separate legal issues. Two party consent is needed in some states even when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Expectation of privacy refers to video.. think like video in a restroom. That's not allowed anywhere due to expectation of privacy.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

I believe the expectation of privacy regarding audio/video is enough. The *audio* *only* is a distinct issue pertaining to eavesdropping, since it is intended to protect against covert taping, like electronic bugs or wire taps.

The police would only have an expectation if they were undercover. I think the court opinions support this fairly clearly.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Driver2448 said:


> Yeah, I'll dig around for the link later when I'm not busy and post it here later. I got an Akaso during the lightning deal. Decent camera but wish audio was better. And yes you'll need sticker notice or verbal notice if you don't have stickers.


Question: my dash cam is painfully obvious - like, it's bright large-ish and displays many multi-colored lights at all times and it's just RIGHT THERE.

If I say something to each pax (like "I realize you probably can't miss it, but I have a dual dash cam installed for my safety and yours") do i still need stickers?

I'm in California, a two party consent state.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

You should be fine. If the passenger objects, offer to cancel. Or, depending on how upset they are, insist on cancelling.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

KenLV said:


> Notices don't really seem to matter to some people.
> I have em and people ignore them and the cameras that are out in the open below my mirror with a solid red and blinking blue light.
> 
> This is the 5th or 6th time I've caught some paxhole jackin' his girlfriend in my car.
> ...


Gross!

But just for clarity's sake, is the guy sitting up on the left side of the photo and the girl is splayed on her back across the seat with her head on her man's shoulder?

I'm having logistical confusion issues right now and I need a little help please.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Driver2448 said:


> Attached is a screenshot of the stickers I have on both sides of my car. I was rather impressed for $5.99 because when I went through the car wash, the stickers were still intact and had not been damaged.


Stickers on the outside of the car are not good enough. Must have notification on inside, and must be obvious. If pax denies seeing the notices, maybe because they were watching traffic or looking at a phone, or drunk, you need to be on the winning end of the argument WITHOUT A DOUBT. Signage inside will accomplish that.



JimKE said:


> *WE are dealing with UBER and LYFT*, not the police. Nobody in their right mind is going to sue an Uber driver (or a cabbie), and nobody's going to put us in jail. The real risk to us is a complaint to the company and their reaction -- which has NOTHING to do with law, implied or expressed consent, or common sense. They do not need any _legal_ justification for deactivating you.


If pax complains, they can and will deactivate you. Doesn't matter if you are in the right or not. See the numerous threads about driver's being deactivated for cleanliness, not-at-fault accidents, service animals, etc.



JimKE said:


> Lyft said basically, _"That's nice, but we've reached out to you before on this issue. *If we get one more complaint, *you'll be permanently deactivated." _ To a driver who had done nothing wrong. These companies don't care about right or wrong.


That was me  I have visited the police to make sure my signage is okay and I am conforming within the laws. I have emailed and visited Lyft hub 3x now on this issue. Every day I turn on my app and wonder if this is the day I will be deactivated over nothing.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

UberBeemer said:


> I believe the expectation of privacy regarding audio/video is enough. The *audio* *only* is a distinct issue pertaining to eavesdropping, since it is intended to protect against covert taping, like electronic bugs or wire taps.
> 
> The police would only have an expectation if they were undercover. I think the court opinions support this fairly clearly.


I'm not sure I understand you but I can tell you there is NO expectation of privacy in someone else's rideshare car. The only issue you have to worry about is two party consent, and if you don't live in a two party consent state, then you don't even have to worry about that. Expectation of privacy is a separate issue that has already been decided in court. It doesn't apply here.

If you're at all worried, put stickers up inside your car, right above every door handle or on seat backs. Problem solved.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Two part consent applies for recordings done in situations where one party might not know they are being recorded. It's why you hear "this conversation may be recorded for training purposes"... who would object to that?

But a dashcam is kind of obvious.


----------



## Clothahump (Mar 31, 2018)

I have these hanging on the back of the seats. Cheap and effective. If the pax doesn't want the camera on, they can pay me a cancel fee and catch a ride with someone else.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XNW59GW/?tag=ubne0c-20


----------



## Spork24 (Feb 5, 2018)

KenLV said:


> Notices don't really seem to matter to some people.
> I have em and people ignore them and the cameras that are out in the open below my mirror with a solid red and blinking blue light.
> 
> This is the 5th or 6th time I've caught some paxhole jackin' his girlfriend in my car.
> ...


so you liked it, enjoyed it, then reported them. damn you savage ken


----------



## KenLV (Jun 23, 2017)

Spork24 said:


> so you liked it, enjoyed it, then reported them. damn you savage ken


 Well, two out of four of those are correct.


----------



## BlueManOC (Jun 21, 2018)

Yeah i put my dashcam up and no notices and people didnt even ask or even seem to mind that i had one


----------

