- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did you know having audio on your surveillance cameras is illegal?
Posted on 10/25/15 at 12:40 pm to Asgard Device
Posted on 10/25/15 at 12:40 pm to Asgard Device
The sign does not exempt you.
The sign removes the presumption of privacy which is a component of the law.
The sign removes the presumption of privacy which is a component of the law.
1
Posted on 10/25/15 at 12:41 pm to Asgard Device
who gives a crap?!
there are ways...
there are ways...
Posted on 10/25/15 at 12:47 pm to Asgard Device
I hope you aren't an attorney because your interpretation of laws is horrible.
Comparing rape to recording a conversation in public (where it is very clearly stated in all state and federal laws that no one should have any expectation of privacy) is more retarded than the rant on game day.
I can go and record whomever I want out in public and there is nothing they can do about it. Now the difference is recording someone in a private setting like their home, office, etc. is where this law applies.
The sheriff was in a privately owned establishment that is open to the public and had no expectation of privacy in that situation. The charges against that PI will not stick. That's not even taking into account that the guy was not hiding while recording them. He made himself visible and present. It's not like he was out in his car hiding and using one of these...
Comparing rape to recording a conversation in public (where it is very clearly stated in all state and federal laws that no one should have any expectation of privacy) is more retarded than the rant on game day.
I can go and record whomever I want out in public and there is nothing they can do about it. Now the difference is recording someone in a private setting like their home, office, etc. is where this law applies.
The sheriff was in a privately owned establishment that is open to the public and had no expectation of privacy in that situation. The charges against that PI will not stick. That's not even taking into account that the guy was not hiding while recording them. He made himself visible and present. It's not like he was out in his car hiding and using one of these...
Posted on 10/25/15 at 1:23 pm to theenemy
quote:
The sign does not exempt you.
The sign removes the presumption of privacy which is a component of the law.
Where in the law does it say the law is nullified if there is no longer a presumption of privacy? Also, there already is no presumption of privacy in public whether or not there's a sign.
Please look at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:1303 and let us know where this "component" is. Please cite the text in the law that you are talking about.
This post was edited on 10/25/15 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 10/25/15 at 1:26 pm to Asgard Device
Thats always been the rule. You can't legally record a conversation (or I guess use in court for anything) you're not part of.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 1:28 pm to Asgard Device
I could see an appellate court pick that statute to shreds.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 2:09 pm to Me4Heisman
quote:
I could see an appellate court pick that statute to shreds.
that's what the democracy does...whatever the fukk it feels like doin
of course they are weasel dirtbags who set up the citizens for failure by omitting the law/civics from the curriculum, they knew heads they win tails you lose
that's what passes for fair in the scumbag created democracy....ptooey
and funny how the democracy, is right up ROTTENs alley
Posted on 10/25/15 at 2:48 pm to cattus
quote:
Can a business owner video tape its own employees without them knowing it legally?
Why would you do this?
Posted on 10/25/15 at 2:55 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
A person cannot overhear or tape a private conversation to which that person is not openly present and participating or listening, unless consent to record is given by at least one of the parties to the conversation. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:1303.
Easy enough work around.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 3:18 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
Why would you do this?
Catch them stealing?
Posted on 10/25/15 at 3:29 pm to Asgard Device
Don't live LA. Don't care.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 3:32 pm to Asgard Device
If could hear the conversation wasn't he openly present and listening?
Posted on 10/25/15 at 3:35 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Also, there already is no presumption of privacy in public whether or not there's a sign.
Again....my understanding is the law forbids recording of a private conversation.
Therefore, in the courts view for a conversation to be private there has to be a expectation of privacy.
If a business has signs up warning that audio recording is being utilized there is no longer an expectation of privacy in that area.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 3:44 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Catch them stealing?
The employees knowing of the video taping would help deter that even happening in the first place.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 3:52 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
The employees knowing of the video taping would help deter that even happening in the first place.
Unless they are stealing out of view of the existing cameras.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 3:59 pm to theenemy
quote:
Therefore, in the courts view for a conversation to be private there has to be a expectation of privacy.
Please cite where the law says anything about expectation of privacy being a factor? Private conversations can exist even when expectation of privacy does not exist.
Quote the law.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 4:10 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Private conversations can exist even when expectation of privacy does not exist.
With no expectation of privacy it is impossible for any conversation to be considered private.
The fact there are "private" conversations in that type situation are only a result of no one making them public.
This post was edited on 10/25/15 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 10/25/15 at 4:12 pm to Asgard Device
shite. That makes most of my hunting cameras illegal.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 4:20 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Quote the law
quote:
A person cannot overhear or tape a private conversation to which that person is not openly present and participating or listening, unless consent to record is given by at least one of the parties to the conversation. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:1303.
Posted on 10/25/15 at 4:31 pm to Who Me
Again, a private conversation is not the same as expectation of privacy. Just because two phrases have the same root word in them does not mean they are the same thing.
A private conversation can still exist in a public setting. Like if I'm talking to my daughter then that is a private conversation, not one broadcasted to a general audience, although there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. You may overhear the conversation and that is perfectly legal but it was still a private conversation.
Ask the Sherrif that arrested the Vitter operative.
A private conversation can still exist in a public setting. Like if I'm talking to my daughter then that is a private conversation, not one broadcasted to a general audience, although there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. You may overhear the conversation and that is perfectly legal but it was still a private conversation.
Ask the Sherrif that arrested the Vitter operative.
This post was edited on 10/25/15 at 4:34 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News