# Dashcam Warning



## Certain Judgment (Dec 2, 2016)

Anyone else ever gotten one of these?



> Follow-Up from Lyft Trust & Safety
> Hi Jason,
> 
> I am hoping to follow up with you regarding a report we received which alleged that you had a dash cam in your vehicle.
> ...


My response:



> Wisconsin state law allows me to have a dash cam in my vehicle. I resent the fact that you sent me this message. The only people who would have a problem with dash cams are the ones with something to hide. Considering you do not allow for lawfully concealed carry weapons in my vehicle a dashcam is necessary for my personal safety not to mention that of my passengers. As an independent contractor you have no right to tell me that I can't have a dashcam in my vehicle.


----------



## Gooberlifturwallet (Feb 18, 2017)

Since when do they discourage in-car cameras? That's like telling us we can't have a radio or use the cameras on our phones. I'm guessing some newbies at Lyft sent that out because they have no clue they are being surveilled at all times as well everywhere. To hell with the thin-skinned butthurt people who carry a personal tracking device with camera and microphone built-in who are being surveilled constantly and then complain about a camera in a car. Trust and safety my ass.


----------



## mjyousse (Dec 7, 2016)

Dude you can sue their asses...


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

I read lyfts note several times. There is no mention of dash cam being prohibited. However, one could see friendly reminder to follow local laws as form of intimidation.

The best response is to reply you are in full compliance with all applicable state laws re recording.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

So they actually have a trust and safety dept? AND at least one flesh and blood "customer representative"?? Oooooh.........


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

mjyousse said:


> Dude you can sue their asses...


How so? That passive-aggressive response didn't explicitly forbid it. Looks like they're learning from Uber in this dept


----------



## mjyousse (Dec 7, 2016)

Cynergie said:


> How so? That passive-aggressive response didn't explicitly forbid it. Looks like they're learning from Uber in this dept


It's his right to record. If he gets deactivated because of that he can for sure


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Where is the written legal mumbo-jumbo that supports this? I've yet to find anything case wise where Lyft is prohibited by law from taking punitive action against us contractors


----------



## DeplorableDonald (Feb 16, 2017)

Maryland has some of the strictest recording laws in the country. Ask Linda Tripp about them.

I consulted an attorney. TNC hasn't been formally determined whether they're public transport like a bus where there's no expectation of privacy or a private area where there is.

Her advice was to have signs saying something like 'for safety audio and video recording may be done'. 

Take a picture of the signs in your car/on window with a newspaper showing date pic taken, then email the picture to yourself. That way you have proof the signs were there if anyone tries saying you didn't.

*I'm not an attorney and don't pretend to be one on the Internet. This is NOT legal advice. Don't go in front of a judge and say 'this guy on the Internet said...'


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

I'd reply, "Could you be anymore VAGUE?"

If cams are legal in your area, post signs everywhere like I did -- haven't had ONE complaint.

















Certain Judgment said:


> Anyone else ever gotten one of these?
> 
> My response:


----------



## MSUGrad9902 (Jun 8, 2016)

Lyft considers a dash-cam as a violation of terms of service. Their "critical response number" is much better for your safety than a dash cam. To that I say, eff you if you want to deactivate me go for it but the dash cam stays on. Michigan is a one party consent state for wiretapping and recording.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

If it's a violation of the ToS then HTH are you gettting away with it?


----------



## MSUGrad9902 (Jun 8, 2016)

Because it's not really a violation of terms of service.


----------



## Wiseleo (Feb 8, 2017)

Umm. No. *I've been shot at *while picking up a passenger. I did not have my camera rolling at that time and that is my biggest regret. My video is on for at least 1 minute before I pickup a passenger. The icons are in plain view: both the red dot and the green microphone. I choose to keep the screen on. No passengers have a problem with it. A few are curious. It is pointed toward the road, but the intent is to capture audio should a passenger choose to become a problem. I don't really need their video to prove the conflict progression.

In fact, I once had to use that evidence when a passenger became verbally abusive to the point of causing me to get scared, which is not easy to achieve. When Lyft followed up on that passenger's complaint after I made a navigation error, I explained I had audio and GPS-synchronized recording of that trip. Not having that recording would have meant it was my passenger's words vs mine, which is undesirable.

Do have the camera rolling _before_ you pick up the passenger. It can be vital.


----------



## supernaut (Nov 26, 2015)

Lol what a bunch of asshats Lyft are. That email from "Jackie" is indeed passive aggressive, and meant to be intimidating. Thank God I'm in my last month of driving for these sheisty af, nasty companies.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

I think Lyft is just covering their butt in case a driver violates a state law and a controversy results. 

You just need to know what your particular state law is. Florida is a two-party consent state except for law enforcement, so I have a little warning sticker displayed. No big deal.

I haven't been asked, but if I am, I'll just say it's for safety of pax and driver both, and I even use it when I'm not ridesharing (true).


----------



## Lag Monkey (Feb 6, 2015)

Lyft back at it with those Uber threatening emails. TF they need to communicate in a less threatening tone. Stirs bad vibes in the driver community. Ruling through fear has worked real well for uber


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Lag Monkey said:


> Lyft back at it with those Uber threatening emails. TF they need to communicate in a less threatening tone. Stirs bad vibes in the driver community. Ruling through fear has worked real well for uber


They're not always threatening. Sometimes they're condescending -- talking to you like you're a second-grader.


----------



## Snowblind (Apr 14, 2017)

In California it is* illegal* to record Audio.
It is called the "two party consent law".
More info:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law


----------



## Certain Judgment (Dec 2, 2016)

> In California it is* illegal* to record Audio.


That's because the state of California is run by corrupt hippie criminal-loving pothead commies.


----------



## DeplorableDonald (Feb 16, 2017)

Snowblind said:


> In California it is* illegal* to record Audio.
> It is called the "two party consent law".
> More info:
> 
> http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law


Ask Donald Sterling how much they enforce that law.*

In that article they say if they're in public, they may or may not have an expectation of privacy.

When I started driving, I consulted an attorney for Maryland law. Maryland's as strict as CA. Uber/Lyft are new areas of the law when it comes to whether we are considered private or public transportation. She said a publicly posted sign, similar to Trump Economics has, should suffice.

*I am in *NO WAY* condoning what Sterling said, but the Kardashian wannabe ***** that taped him, in CA without his consent, skated without being charged. She should've been charged with recording him without consent.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Snowblind said:


> In California it is* illegal* to record Audio.
> It is called the "two party consent law".
> More info:
> 
> http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law


There's nothing the least bit unusual about your law -- nor does your law make recording *illegal.*

You just have to have the person's consent. You obtain consent simply by displaying some kind of sign that says recording may be in progress. Lots of choices available -- just Google.

The other critical piece, of course, is to STOP recording if your pax objects.


----------



## MSUGrad9902 (Jun 8, 2016)

JimKE said:


> The other critical piece, of course, is to STOP recording if your pax objects.


If pax objects to the dash cam then I object to driving them. No dash cam no ride.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

DeplorableDonald said:


> Ask Donald Sterling how much they enforce that law.*
> 
> In that article they say if they're in public, they may or may not have an expectation of privacy.
> 
> ...


Anyways! Dash cams are legal, the audio is legal (in CA), but the other party must be informed -- hence the signs I have in my car. If you disagree, the ride doesn't begin. If you claim you didn't see both signs, then you and I can go to court and argue over your "reasonable expectation of privacy," and you'll be paying the attorneys fees when we're done. Just ask Taco Bell's former executive.


----------



## Snowblind (Apr 14, 2017)

> Just ask Taco Bell's former executive.


LOL!


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

MSUGrad9902 said:


> If pax objects to the dash cam then I object to driving them. No dash cam no ride.


Right -- that's the other option.

And actually...maybe the better option. If you really do turn the camera off, the pax probably won't believe you, and will probably give you a low rating.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

What's a rating? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## LAbDog65 (Nov 29, 2016)

I use a dash cam and I do not have any signs. I checked out NC law and it is a one party consent state so I feel I am safe


----------



## freddieman (Oct 24, 2016)

Certain Judgment said:


> Anyone else ever gotten one of these?
> 
> My response:


they never stated you can not have it. it just stated to be in compliance with state law while using it.


----------



## Fenwitch (Sep 4, 2016)

Certain Judgment said:


> That's because the state of California is run by corrupt hippie criminal-loving pothead commies.


 Not true. In the state of California as long as the recording device is in plain view then it is considered legal to record as long as the party being recorded does not request that you stop recording.

Also in the state of California a car is your personal property and the passenger has entered your personal property and is no longer in a public space so you have the ability to record within your own personal property.

If recording video and sound was illegal then reality TV could not exist because every single person on the street who made any type of sound whatsoever would be required to sign a release, and that is just not logistically possible.


----------



## AuxCordBoston (Dec 3, 2016)

Certain Judgment said:


> Anyone else ever gotten one of these?
> 
> My response:


Although your post is two months old, I recently created a thread asking whether anyone received complaints for dash cams. Nobody replied saying they got one. You are the first.


----------



## empresstabitha (Aug 25, 2016)

Certain Judgment said:


> Anyone else ever gotten one of these?
> 
> My response:


All I saw was them saying is you can have one but follow all the laws. Like if you have to hang a sign making it known that it's in your car etc. I don't know your stste rules so if your in compliance don't worry about it.



Certain Judgment said:


> That's because the state of California is run by corrupt hippie criminal-loving pothead commies.


Do you even know what communism is?


----------



## Woohaa (Jan 15, 2017)

This is why Sterling's girl wasn't charged & why dashcams are indeed legal in California; _*If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place....
*_
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when a pax takes a ride in your car.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

If you're entering my space where you may likely puke, don't you think we're a little bit beyond "privacy"?


----------



## luvgurl22 (Jul 5, 2016)

Certain Judgment said:


> Anyone else ever gotten one of these?
> 
> My response:


Just make sure you have a sign up notifying passengers that they are being recorded


----------



## isly (Aug 29, 2017)

Does anyone have pics of their signs? And can you explain how you made them? If no pics, please tell me what exactly did you have written?

Does anyone have pics of their signs? And can you explain how you made them? If no pics, please tell me what exactly did you have written?


----------



## DrivingForYou (Aug 6, 2017)

Snowblind said:


> In California it is* illegal* to record Audio.
> It is called the "two party consent law".
> More info:
> 
> http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law


You are partially misinterpreting the law. The bright line is "expectation of privacy", and with you as the driver in the car, the passengers do NOT have a "reasonable expectation of privacy", because you as a driver are a third party within earshot.

There would probably be an issue if the cameras were HIDDEN, but having a visible camera is part of the value of having a camera.

It IS advisable to have a sign stating that audio and video are being recorded. Such a sign illuminates the expectation of privacy, and removes any potential legal issue.

An ideal sign says "*for safety and quality assurance, video and audio is being recorded. All recordings are continuously erased except in the case of an incident , in which case only the incident related material is saved*."

California case law clearly makes recording legal so long as the expectation to privacy is eliminated.



Fenwitch said:


> Also in the state of California a car is your personal property and the passenger has entered your personal property and is no longer in a public space so you have the ability to record within your own personal property.


I agree with you, but do you have a legal cite for this specific statement?


----------



## Wings2000 (Oct 29, 2017)

Snowblind said:


> In California it is* illegal* to record Audio.
> It is called the "two party consent law".
> More info:
> 
> ...


----------



## Willjohnsdrive (Dec 3, 2018)

I got this from the LYFT website driver area.....

*Recording device policy*
Depending on local regulations, the use of dashboard cameras and other recording devices during rides may not be allowed. Some cities or states may require signage making known the presence of recording devices, while other regions may not allow recording devices at all.

Please refer to your city and state's regulations on recording devices when giving rides.


----------



## LAbDog65 (Nov 29, 2016)

My state is a one party consent state. I consent so I am keeping my dash cam.


----------

