Am I required to notify passenger of a dash cam?

J1MB0B · Aug 1, 2016

I've been driving for Uber and Lyft for a while now. I have a dash cam with front and rear facing cameras in my car. Am I required to verbally notify passengers that they are being recorded?
I have small stickers on the camera and on the windows that say "Audio\Video recording in progress". The issue there is, I drive mostly at night and nobody see's them in the dark. Out of 500ish rides, I have only had two people, in the last week, get upset because I didn't tell them and get their permission to record them.
Uber and Lyft both say follow state laws, so no help there.
I thought I read somewhere that if its obvious that you are recording, no notice is needed. I can't remember where that came from, attorney general's opinion maybe? If that's the case, the thing is pretty obvious. Its big, has a red and green flashing light on it, you cant miss it. Especially at night.
I guess the real question is, are my stickers good enough, or do I need to verbally announce the recording?
And, yes, I have read through all of RCW 9.73.

WalkingWolf · Aug 1, 2016

Depends on the state laws in Washington, I would say no since taking a taxi is not considered private. If you have what is termed a private conversation then it might require it. My recommendation would be put a sign on the dash that the passenger can read, that would fulfill your obligation to notify.

solus · Aug 1, 2016

this is a stretch...however, RCW 9.73.030 talks about the recording of 'conversations'
quote: (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation. unquote

olde 2012 discussion seems to bear out my initial assessment: http://community.lawyers.com/forums/t/122677.aspx

see big bend CC policy paragraph 2.3 & 2.3.1 http://www.bigbend.edu/wp-content/u...706-security-surveillance-cameras-2-23-15.pdf

bbcc flat out stated their cams do not record audio...

i am unable to find anything in RCW regarding video surveillance statutes.

hope that assists your decision making

ipse

MAC702 · Aug 1, 2016

RCW said:
RCW 9.73.030 Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.
(1) ...it shall be unlawful for any individual... to ... record any:
...
(b) Private conversation ... without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
...
(3) ...consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.

It appears that you need to be quite clear that they are being recorded. I do not know if video-only is included in your law. I snipped it for relevancy and added an underline to the key word, but now you know where to go if you want to make sure I didn't snip something that affects you.

J1MB0B · Aug 1, 2016

It does record audio. I am fully aware of RCW 9.73.030. There are stickers in and on the car stating that there is audio and video recording in progress, a total of 4 of them, on the dash cam itself, and on all three door windows used by passengers. My question is, is signage enough to satisfy the notification requirement in RCW 9.73.030?

Reading trough the RCW again I missed this tidbit before:

(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or

I would venture to say that a sticker or sign would be reasonably effective.

color of law · Aug 1, 2016

NOTICE: By entering this vehicle you consent to the recording of all conversation, private or public.

I would plaster this notice on the windows, dash and back seat.

color of law · Aug 1, 2016

J1MB0B said:
It does record audio. I am fully aware of RCW 9.73.030. There are stickers in and on the car stating that there is audio and video recording in progress, a total of 4 of them, on the dash cam itself, and on all three door windows used by passengers. My question is, is signage enough to satisfy the notification requirement in RCW 9.73.030?

Reading trough the RCW again I missed this tidbit before:

(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or

I would venture to say that a sticker or sign would be reasonably effective.

Yes, signage is notice.

decklin · Aug 1, 2016

This is a public business transaction. As such passengers (customers) have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

solus · Aug 1, 2016

decklin said:
This is a public business transaction. As such passengers (customers) have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

i am sure somewhere attached to this tidbit knowledge was stored is a cite somewhere which lends credence to the information.

ipse

WalkingWolf · Aug 1, 2016

decklin said:
This is a public business transaction. As such passengers (customers) have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Depends on the transaction, a doctors exam is a business transaction. I would not consider a transaction inside of a vehicle public. Sometimes inside of a building may not be public. Recording from outside a vehicle would be legal, IMO, private conversation within a vehicle no. It is very possible that business may be conducted by electronic device, phone, or in person that is private. When hiring a contractor for a service there is an expectation of privacy.

davidmcbeth · Aug 1, 2016

(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.

Going further on the statue .. you must record that you are recording. So "consent" includes notification if notification is recorded.

Looks like you'll need to record you telling them that the camera is running and will record.

It goes state by state ... usually all telephone recordings must be consented to (federal law) but face to face ? Vast differences in states to it being OK and the criminal/civil aspects of recordings.

Of course, IANAL .. and advise you to seek out further case law and other issues ... maybe contact your legislature and have the law amended to exclude vehicle cams (if not already?).

Grapeshot · Aug 1, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
(3) --snipped--

It goes state by state ... usually all telephone recordings must be consented to (federal law) but face to face ? Vast differences in states to it being OK and the criminal/civil aspects of recordings.

Virginia is a 'one party consent' state and you are one party.

There are other states with similar laws.

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

decklin · Aug 1, 2016

WalkingWolf said:
Depends on the transaction, a doctors exam is a business transaction. I would not consider a transaction inside of a vehicle public. Sometimes inside of a building may not be public. Recording from outside a vehicle would be legal, IMO, private conversation within a vehicle no. It is very possible that business may be conducted by electronic device, phone, or in person that is private. When hiring a contractor for a service there is an expectation of privacy.

Doctors exams are covered under HIPPA.

WalkingWolf · Aug 2, 2016

decklin said:
Doctors exams are covered under HIPPA.

And they would still be covered if there was no HIPPA. The reception area of a lawyers office is not covered under HIPPA, but is public, any conversation or payment done in this area is private. Anytime there is a private conversation for any reason, and one uses technology to record the conversation they IMO are in violation of the law. A passenger could be conducting business while en route, or could be having a business conversation while en route. It would be wise to make sure the passenger was notified of the recording, or face a very bad lawsuit.

Maverick9 · Aug 2, 2016

decklin said:
Doctors exams are covered under HIPPA.

There is no such thing.

See HIPAA

solus · Aug 2, 2016

divorce lawyers would love to get hold of video/audio recordings of their client's partners traveling to clandestine romantic interludes.

ipse

Freedom1Man · Aug 2, 2016

solus said:
divorce lawyers would love to get hold of video/audio recordings of their client's partners traveling to clandestine romantic interludes.

ipse

Except he is not required to share the recordings.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

solus · Aug 2, 2016

Freedom1Man said:
Except he is not required to share the recordings.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

hummm, subpoena comes immediately to mind...then individual is required to respond to the judiciary.

ipse

rapgood · Aug 2, 2016

J1MB0B said:
Reading trough the RCW again I missed this tidbit before:

(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or

I would venture to say that a sticker or sign would be reasonably effective.

Yep.

decklin said:
This is a public business transaction. As such passengers (customers) have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I'm not so sure that I agree.

davidmcbeth said:
Going further on the statue .. you must record that you are recording. So "consent" includes notification if notification is recorded.

Looks like you'll need to record you telling them that the camera is running and will record.

I think the signage suffices.

It goes state by state ... usually all telephone recordings must be consented to (federal law) but face to face ? Vast differences in states to it being OK and the criminal/civil aspects of recordings.

Consent under federal law is required by only one party. FBI agents frequently record their sole consent prior to entering into and recording an undercover activity or clandestine meeting, but do not need nor seek the consent of the other party(s).

J1MB0B · Aug 2, 2016

Thanks for the input guys, looks like I m sticking with the window stickers.
If someone wants to subpoena the footage, they better do it quick. It records on a loop in 2 minute increments, so unless I decide to keep some of it, each 2 minute file gets erased and a new one takes its place evey 7-8ish hours.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Am I required to notify passenger of a dash cam?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member